IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40013 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-471 Year-2023 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE - NAUGACHIA District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Eknath Sharma Son of Late Surendra Sharma Resident of Village- Chakrami Narayanpur, P.S.- Bhawanipur, District- Bhagalpur, presently R/o- Housing Board Colony, Bhagalpur, MH-5, Arban Near Polytechnic Ground, P.S.- Barari, District- Bhagalpur. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Abhishek Kumar Son of Bajrang Rajak Resident of Village and P.O.- Shikaripara, P.S.- Shikaripara, District- Dumka (Jharkhand), Permanent resident of Village- Chitragariya, P.O.- Benagariya, P.S.- Shikaripara, District- Dumka (Jharkhand). 3. The Manager, Tata Motors Finance Ltd., Purnea Branch. P.O. and P.S.- Purnea, District- Purnea. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP For the O.P. No. 3 : Mr. Dayanand Singh, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Kashyap, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 5 13-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No. 3. However, none appeared on behalf of O.P. No. 2, even after repeated calls in-spite of the fact that there are two counsel on record namely, Mr. Digamber Kr. Singh, Advocate and Mr. Majid Mahboob Khan, Advocate. 2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40013 of 2026(5) dt.13-08-2026 2/5 Naugachiya Complaint Case No. 471 of 2023 in which cognizance has been taken for the offense under sections 406 & 417 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner has done fraudulent act by entering into an illegal agreement to sale the hypothecated vehicle with third party (complainant) and illegally handed over the possession of hypothecated vehicle to a third party (complainant). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he is in custody since 06.04.2026. Counsel submits that as per the complaint case, the allegation made by the complainant/O.P. no. 2 is that he purchased a Hyva Truck on 01.03.2022 from the petitioner bearing Registration No. BR10GB 4978, Chassis No. MAT541201K3F17025,Engine No.ISBE592304091F63796395, Model of 2019. Counsel submits that the said truck was purchased by the accused-petitioner through finance by virtue of EMI. The basic allegation is that after providing the truck to the complainant/O.P. no. 2, the petitioner has taken further loan on the basis of said Hyva truck and a memorandum of understanding was also prepared between them on 07.03.2022 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40013 of 2026(5) dt.13-08-2026 3/5 and it was decided that the EMI shall be paid by the O.P. no. 2 and after getting NOC from the Finance Co., ownership shall be transferred in the name of complainant. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the memorandum of understanding, it has been categorically indicated that the said vehicle has been purchased from the Tata Motors Finance Ltd. (O.P. No. 3) and some EMI is due on behalf of authorized owner, hence, the purchaser is responsible to pay the settled amount to the said Finance company. He submits that the complainant after taking possession of the truck started running it for business and earned money, but failed to pay the installment to the Finance company. When the EMI of the truck was not paid, then the Finance company seized the vehicle in its possession and notice has also been sent by the Finance Co. to the petitioner. Counsel further submits that the allegation of taking loan of Rs. 37,81,103/- (Thirty Seven Lacs Eighty One Thousand One Hundred Three) on 15.06.2022 from the Tata Finance Co. by the petitioner on the said truck is completely false and fabricated. 6. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite party no. 3 (Tata Motors Finance Ltd.) submits that the disputed property i.e. Hyva truck was under hypothecation, Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40013 of 2026(5) dt.13-08-2026 4/5 meaning thereby, owner is the Tata Finance Co. and only after completion of entire amount agreed, the ownership shall be transferred in the name of loanee i.e. the petitioner. He submits that so far as the other loan amount i.e. Rs. 37,81,103/- taken by the petitioner on the basis of truck is concerned, this is absolutely incorrect. He submits that not only the Tata Finance Co. but any financial company shall never provide loan or shall mortgage any property which was already under hypothecation. 7. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner but fairly submits that in the light of stand taken by the Tata Finance Co. (O.P. No. 3), it is clear that the basic allegation of the complainant made in the complaint petition that putting the Hyva truck on the one hand under sale and taking loan on the said truck is not possible legally. 8. After hearing the parties and upon the pleadings and arguments of the O.P. no. 3, it transpires to this Court that the allegation made in complaint is not sustainable and it is due to this reason at this juncture, let the above named petitioner be granted bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) as mentioned in Section 2(1)(d) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 to the satisfaction of S.D.J.M., Naugachiya, Bhagalpur in connection with Naugachiya Complaint Case No. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40013 of 2026(5) dt.13-08-2026 5/5 471 of 2023, subject to the conditions as laid down U/s 480(3) of the B.N.S.S., 2023. Divyansh/- (Dr. Anshuman, J) U T