logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 SC 501 print Preview print Next print
Court : Supreme Court of India
Case No : Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2026. (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 4893 of 2026)
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Parties : Sardar Iqbal Singh @ Iqbal Singh Bagga @ Iqbal Singh Versus The State of Bihar
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: ------- For the Respondent: -----
Date of Judgment : 20-03-2026
Head Note :-
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 420, 504/34 -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Sections 406, 420, 504/34

2. Catch Words:
- pre‑arrest bail
- bail bonds
- money dispute
- misuse of criminal process
- cheating

3. Summary:
The appellant sought pre‑arrest bail for FIR No.308/2024 filed under Sections 406, 420 and 504/34 of the IPC. Counsel argued that the case stemmed from a monetary dispute and the criminal complaint was a misuse of the process. The State contended that the appellant had cheated the complainant and therefore deserved no bail. After reviewing the FIR, the court found merit in the appellant’s claim and deemed him eligible for pre‑arrest bail. The appeal was allowed, directing that the appellant be released on bail upon furnishing satisfactory bail bonds if arrested. Any pending applications were ordered to stand disposed of.

4. Conclusion:
Appeal Allowed
Judgment :-

1. Leave granted.

2. The prayer made in the present appeal is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the appellant in connection with FIR No.308/2024 dated 26.06.2024 registered at Police Station Patrakar Nagar, District Patna, Bihar, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. The arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that from a plain reading of the FIR, it is evident that it is a money dispute between the parties. The complainant is seeking to get the same recovered by initiating criminal process, which is nothing but misuse thereof.

4. Learned counsel for the State, however, submitted that in the facts of the case, the appellant is not entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail, as he has cheated the complainant.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the contents of the FIR, in our opinion, the appellant deserves concession of pre-arrest bail.

6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. In the event of arrest, the appellant shall be released on bail in connection with aforesaid FIR No.308/2024 on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. Needless to add that appellant will continue to cooperate during investigation.

7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
 
  CDJLawJournal