Prabhat Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court granted pre-arrest bail to petitioner no.2, Murari Prasad, while disposing of the bail application. The Court noted that the dispute between petitioner no.1 and the informant was primarily monetary and could be settled outside court or through a civil suit. Regarding petitioner no.2, the Court found no specific allegation that he forged or fraudulently retained any money belonging to the informant, and therefore, was inclined to enlarge him on pre-arrest bail. Petitioner no.2 was directed to furnish a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. / 482(2) BNSS. The Court also directed the District Court to verify petitioner no.2's criminal antecedents, stating that if he was involved in other cases, the bail order would lose its force. The bail application was disposed of.

Facts

The petitioners, Prabhat Kumar and his father Murari Prasad, sought pre-arrest bail in connection with Motihari Town P.S. Case No. 04 of 2026. The FIR alleged that petitioner no.1, along with petitioner no.2, embezzled Rs. 8,05,851/- from sale proceeds of medicines sold to retailers, which were allegedly retained and not deposited with the informant. The petitioners claimed the case was false, lodged to pressure petitioner no.1 for unpaid salary, and argued that receipts for medicine sales were not produced. Petitioner no.2, the father, claimed innocence and that he was implicated to pressure petitioner no.1. The informant admitted petitioner no.1 worked at his shop and that retailers had not complained about undelivered medicines, suggesting GST invoices were with the informant. The State opposed the bail application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. (or equivalent provision under BNSS) given the allegations of embezzlement of sale proceeds of medicines? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the FIR was false, motivated by a dispute over unpaid salary for petitioner no.1. They contended that no receipts for the alleged embezzled amount were produced with the FIR. Petitioner no.2 claimed he was falsely implicated as his father to exert pressure on petitioner no.1. They relied on the principle that pre-arrest bail should be granted in cases of false implication or where the dispute is essentially civil in nature. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State, through the learned APP, opposed the prayer for pre-arrest bail. The informant's counsel also opposed the bail application for petitioner no.1, but acknowledged the dispute was monetary and could potentially be settled outside court. They highlighted that GST invoices relating to the sale proceeds were with the informant and could be produced.