Sourav Pradhan vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sourav Pradhan, Senior Officer at Masters Development Management (India) Private Limited, seeks anticipatory bail. The case arises from a complaint by the informant, Director of Tapovardhan Prakritik Chikitsa Kendra. An agreement was made on 11.11.2021, for the company to complete construction worth Rs. 36 Crores within 16 months, with a management fee of Rs. 68,16,000/-. The informant alleges the company failed to complete the work within the stipulated period, overstayed for 12 months, and charged an excess amount of Rs. 93,79,000/- and Rs. 74,31,807/-. The petitioner claims he has clean antecedents and that similarly situated co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail by the Supreme Court. The informant's counsel stated they have no instructions to oppose the bail application.
Held
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The reasoning appears to be based on the petitioner's submission that similarly situated co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail by the Supreme Court, and the informant's counsel not opposing the application. The Court found merit in granting the privilege of anticipatory bail. The petitioner, Sourav Pradhan, is to be enlarged on bail upon his arrest or surrender within four weeks, subject to furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur. This is in connection with Barari P.S. Case No. 90 of 2024, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. No specific issues regarding GST provisions were discussed or decided in this judgment, as it primarily concerns anticipatory bail.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (or its equivalent under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) given the allegations of overcharging and non-completion of work? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends he has been falsely implicated, has clean antecedents, and that similarly situated co-accused, Saikat Sen Gupta and others, have been granted anticipatory bail by the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Cr.) No. 3786 of 2026. He assures cooperation with the investigation if granted bail. Revenue/State's arguments: The counsel for the informant stated they have instructions not to oppose the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner. No arguments were recorded for the State.
Sections Cited
Section 438, Section 482(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER 6 15-05-2026 Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. Ramakant Sharma, appearing for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
Petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 308(3), 161(2) of the B.N.S., 2023. 3. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that Tapovardhan Prakritik Chikitsa Kendra is registered under the Society Registration Act 2/4 where people come for Prakritik Chikitsa, further for expanding the Center, an agreement was entered in between the Director of the Center (informant) and Master Development Management Private Limited, a Mumbai based Project Management Company on 11.11.2021, for completing the construction of the Center, worth Rs. 36 Crores within a period of 16 months, further the fee payable to the management company was Rs. 68,16,000/- which was to be paid in 16 installments, but the company did not complete the work within the stipulated 16 months, rather the employees of the company overstayed for a period of 12 months without completing the work, further on 03.05.2022, the informant had complained to the Chairman of the company namely Jaspreet Singh (Petitioner) with regard to the pace of the work and he had assured that the work would be completed within the stipulated time, but the same was not done, rather the company saddled the informant with extra fee, which was objected, but the company instead of the agreed amount plus GST realised an amount of Rs. 93,79,000/- in excess, further alleges that the company realised an amount in excess of Rs. 74,31,807/- despite not completing the work,
hence alleges that the agreement entered in between the informant and the company was nothing, but an illusion, as 3/4 work was not completed within the stipulated time and money in excess was charged in connivance with the officials of the informant.
The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the instant case by the informant, it is further submitted that similarly situated, co-accused, Saikat Sen Gupta and others, have been already been granted privilege of anticipatory bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 06.04.2026 passed in S.L.P. (Cr.) No. 3786 of 2026, it is further submitted that if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in the investigation.
At this stage, learned counsel for the informant submits that he has instruction not to oppose the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Let the petitioner, as named above, in the event of his arrest or surrender within four weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the 4/4 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, in connection with Barari P.S. Case No. 90 of 2024, subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. sanjeev/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.