Patna High Court delivered eight judgements on November 10, 4 by Justice Arun Kumar Jha

Patna High Court delivered eight judgements on November 10, 2025 in Amrendra Kumar vs. The State of Bihar and Munshi Mahto vs. The State of Bihar, Karnal Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Excise, Government. of Bihar, Patna, Pankaj Kumar Sinha @ Pankaj Kumar vs. The State of Bihar by Justice Arun Kumar Jha, Amrit vs. The State of Bihar by Justice Harish Kumar, Dhananjay Nishad @ Dhananjay Kumar Nishad vs. The State of Bihar, by Justice Sourendra Pandey Rajeev Ranjan vs. The State of Bihar, by Justice Ajit Kumar and Bibhuti Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar, by Justice Partha Sarthy. 

Out of these four were by Justice Jha. In Amrendra Kumar's case, Justice Jha concluded:" in the light of the provision of Negotiable Instruments Act and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Gian Chand Garg (supra), the present revision petition is allowed and the judgment dated 25.02.2020 and judgment and order of sentence dated 23.08.2019 are set aside." 

In Gian Chand Garg vs. Harpal Singh & Anr. passed in Special Leave To Appeal (CRL.) No. 8050 of 2025, the Supreme Court in its order dated August 11, 2025 held that although dishonour of cheque entails criminal consequence, the legislature by virtue of section 147 of the Negotiable Instrument Act has made it compoundable notwithstanding the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the same can be compounded at any stage of the proceedings especially when the parties have themselves arrived at a voluntary compromise. Thereafter, considering the compromise between the complainant and the convict, the concurrent conviction rendered by the Courts below have been set aside. 

 

 

Supreme Court reverses Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh's bail rejection order

In Sunil Dhanwat @ Atharva Sunil Dhanwat @Sunil Pandurang Dhanwat vs, The State of Bihar & Anr. (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and N.V. Anjaria passed a 2-page long order dated July 25, 2025 granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. The order reads: "Considering the nature of the case, we are of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required in this case, however, this will be subject to the total cooperation of the petitioner in the ongoing investigations. Consequently, we allow the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and make the order dated 09.05.2025 as absolute. Accordingly, in the event of arrest, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail forthwith on the usual terms and conditions to be decided by the concerned Court." 

The petition was disposed of. The arose out of a 3-page long order dated March 24, 2025 passed by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh of the Patna High Court in Sunil Dhanwat @ Atharva Sunil Dhanwat @Sunil Pandurang Dhanwat vs, The State of Bihar & Anr. (2025). 

Justice Singh had dismissed the petition for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner because of the gravity of the facts and circumstances of the case.

The petitioner was an accused in a complaint case of 2024, for the offences punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. He apprehended his arrest and his anticipatory bail application was dismissed by the High Court under the order impugned. Being aggrieved, he had approached the Supreme Court and vide order dated May 9, 2025, the Court while issuing notice, granted interim protection to the petitioner subject to cooperation in the  investigation.  

The prosecution case was that petitioner being the Proprietor-cum-Director of Spekans EPC Pvt. Ltd., Pune engaged the complainant for a project related to structure fabrication at a site in Surat (Gujarat). The complainant alleged that he invested Rs. 50,85,656/- in the said project, whereas petitioner made a payment of Rs. 23,38,000/-via RTGS, leaving outstanding amount of Rs. 27,47,656/-. It was also alleged that the petitioner issued a cheque of Rs. 17,47,656/-, which bounced due to insufficiency of fund.

The complainant's counsel had opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail in the High Court. He had submitted that petitioner did not deny the allegation made in the complaint petition and the cheque issued by the petitioner bounced due to insufficiency of fund. In this case, petitioner neither appeared nor surrendered before the Court and as such, he was declared absconder and process of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated against him to ensure his appearance in the Court. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. He relied on the following decisions in support of this submission: (i) Lavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 730 (ii) State of MP vs. Pradeep Sharma (2014) 2 SCC 17 and (iii) Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar 2021 SCC OnLine SC 955.

The counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr., arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7940 of 2023.

Justice Singh's order reads: "It is a case of ‘cheque bounce’. The cheque, issued by the petitioner, got bounced due to insufficiency of fund. In this case, process of Section 82 Cr.P.C. has already been initiated on 12.12.2024 and as such, petitioner is not entitled to relief of anticipatory bail. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case and gravity of the offence, the petition for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner is dismissed." Reversing, Justice Singh's order, the Supreme Court has granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner by making its order dated May 9, 2025 as absolute. By its earlier, the Court had granted interim protection to the petitioner.