Shobha Kumari vs State Of Bihar and Anr

Court
Patna High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38617 of 2016
CNR No. BRHC010461762016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-51 Year-2016 Thana- SHEIKHOPUR SARAI District-
Sheikhpura
======================================================
Shobha Kumari Wife of Radhe Sharma, Proprietor, M/s. Kisan Agro
Enterprises, resident of Village Nimi P.S. Shekhopur Saray, District-
Sheikhpura.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Bihar
2. The District Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies, Corporation
Limited, Sheikhpura.
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Adv.
For the Opposite Parties : Sri Shyam Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 03-11-2026
Heard the parties.
2. The present petition has been filed for quashing of
the order dated 27.06.2016 passed in A.B.P. No. 295 of 2016
(arising out of Shekhopur Saray P.S. Case No. 51 of 2016
dated 17.06.2016) registered under Sections 406, 409, 420
and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
3. For better understanding of fact, it would be
apposite to reproduce the impugned order which is as under: -

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38617 of 2016 dt.03-11-2026
2/6

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38617 of 2016 dt.03-11-2026
3/6
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for
petitioner that learned trial court failed to appreciate the legal
position as onerous condition cannot be imposed while granting
bail to accused/petitioner. In support of his submission, learned
counsel relied upon the legal reports of Hon’ble Supreme
Court as available through Sumit Mehta Vs. STATE (NCT
OF DELHI) reported in (2013) 15 SCC 570 ; Kundan
Singh Vs. Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38617 of 2016 dt.03-11-2026
4/6
reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 2568 and Gajanan
Dattatray Gore Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1571 .
5. It would be apposite to reproduce the paragraph
nos. 8, 9 and 10 of Kundan Singh Case (supra) which are
as under:-
“ 8 . There cannot be any dispute that
excessive bail is no bail and onerous conditions ought
not to be imposed while bail is granted. As to what is an
onerous condition would no doubt depend on the facts
and circumstances of the individual case. What is
troubling however, is when attempts are made to
foreclose consideration of bail application on merits by
voluntarily offering deposits of amounts and thereafter
reneging on it by stating that a counsel had no authority
and/or that the condition is onerous.
9. We are not able to countenance this practice. Even in this
case the argument is that the counsel has no authority to
offer monetary deposit, when in the modification
application no such averment was made and all that was
averred was that the amount of Rs. 50,00,000/-, as
directed, be also deferred to the point after the release of
the petitioner.
10. We strongly deprecate this practice. If the offer for
monetary deposit had not been made, at the outset, the
High Court may have considered the case on merits and
may have granted or may not have granted relief to the
petitioner. Today the petitioner is approbating and
reprobating. We are conscious of his rights under Article 21
of the Constitution of India, but we have to be equally
conscious of the sanctity of the judicial process and cannot
allow parties to play ducks and drakes with the Court.”
6. It would also be apposite to reproduce the
paragraph nos.16, 17 and 18 of Gajanan Dattatray Gore
Case (supra) which are as under:-
“ 16 . We have come across cases like the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38617 of 2016 dt.03-11-2026
5/6
one in hand where accused persons have gone to the
extent of filing affidavits in the form of undertaking that
they would deposit a particular amount within a
particular period and then conveniently resile from such
undertakings saying it is an onerous condition.
17. In some cases, perhaps the accused may abide by such
undertaking, but our experience so far has been that in
many cases the accused later would not abide and flout the
undertaking. In many cases it would be argued on behalf of
the accused that he had never made such a statement and
the court on its own had recorded in the order that the
accused is ready and willing to deposit a particular amount.
At times the entire blame is thrown on the lawyer in
making such statement for the purpose of obtaining order
of bail or anticipatory bail as the case may be. In such
circumstances, the concerned court would be left with no
other option but to cancel the bail either at the instance of
the State or the original complainant.
18. The case in hand is one in which the appellant on his
own free will and volition filed an affidavit in the form of an
undertaking before the High Court that he would deposit
an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- but ultimately resiled to do so
and the High Court had to cancel the bail. It was too much
for the lawyer of the appellant to argue before the High
Court that asking his client to deposit Rs. 25,00,000/- was
unreasonable. It reflects on the professional ethics.”
7. Learned APP opposed the quashing petition.
8. Upon perusal of the order, it transpires that it was
not the learned trial court which imposed the condition but, in
fact, the installment was fixed to the tune of Rs.
39,54,984.87/- which was made only upon the request of the
petitioner that she is ready to pay aforesaid dues amount
within six months. Certainly, the petitioner cannot challenge a
condition to which she herself had agreed and subsequently
seek to characterise the same as onerous.
9. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38617 of 2016 dt.03-11-2026
6/6
granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to the condition of
depositing Rs. 7,00,000/- as the first instalment towards the
outstanding dues of Rs. 39,54,984.87/-. However, it appears
that the petitioner has not deposited the said amount till date
and, despite non-compliance with the condition imposed by the
Court, continues to enjoy the benefit of anticipatory bail. Such
conduct on the part of the petitioner reflects disregard for the
self-imposed condition subject to which the concession of
anticipatory bail was granted.
10. Considering aforesaid, the present petition is
devoid of any merit.
11. Accordingly, the present petition stands
dismissed.
12. Let the copy of the judgment be sent to learned
trial court forthwith with TCR, if any.

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Aniket/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 03.11.2026
Transmission Date 03.11.2026