Patna High Court - Orders
Jaspreet Singh @ Jaspreet Singh Saroya vs The State Of Bihar on 9 February, 2026
Author: Satyavrat Verma
Bench: Satyavrat Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53291 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-90 Year-2024 Thana- BARARI District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
1. Jaspreet Singh @ Jaspreet Singh Saroya Son Of Late Harbans Singh Saroya
Authorised Representative of Masters Development Management (India),
Private Limited, having its office address at Unit- 207 and 208, Sagar Tech
Plaza, B Wing, Sakinaka Junction, Ps- Sakinaka, Andheri Kurla Road,
andheri East Munbai
2. Pradeep Anand Shetty @ Pradeep Shetty son of Anand S Setty, Authorised
Representative of Masters Development Management (India), Private
Limited, and its group companies having its office address at Unit- 207 and
208, Sagar Tech Plaza, B Wing, Sakinaka Junction, Ps- Sakinaka, Andheri
Kurla Road, andheri East Munbai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Vishal Vikram Rana, Adv.
Mr. Utkarsh Vikram Rana, Adv.
Ms. Nisha Bharti, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Sagar Dev, Adv.
Mr. Aakash Priya, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 09-02-20261. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, Mr. Rajesh Kumar.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Barari P.S. Case No.90 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 308(3) and 161(2) of the BNS, 2023.
3. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53291 of 2025(4) dt.09-02-2026 2/14 the petitioners submits that the informant alleges that Tapovardhan Prakritik Chikitsa Kendra is registered under the Society Registration Act 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/- Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53291 of 2025(4) dt.09-02-2026 3/14 despite not completing the work, hence alleges that the agreement entered in between the informant and the company was nothing, but an illusion, as work was not completed within the stipulated time and money in excess was charged in connivance with the officials of the informant.
4. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R., it would manifest that the informant alleges that an agreement was entered in between the informant and the management company for expanding the Center, for which a time limit along with amount payable was fixed, it is next submitted that informant is aggrieved by the fact that the petitioners' company did not complete the work within the stipulated time and also charged much in excess by producing inflated invoices. It is also submitted that petitioners had approached this Court seeking quashing of the FIR by filing Cr.W.J.C. No. 2551 of 2024 and the same was dismissed by an order dated 22.04.2025 by a learned Co-ordinate Bench with an observation that the petitioners would be at liberty to file an application seeking quashing of the FIR after filing of charge sheet. It is submitted that against the order passed by this Court in Cr.W.J.C. No. 2551 of 2024, the petitioners moved before the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53291 of 2025(4) dt.09-02-2026 4/14 Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing SLP No. 8825 of 2025, which was also disposed of by an order dated 09.06.2025 (Annexure- P/5). It is next submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while disposing of the SLP No. 8825 of 2025, recorded that- "At this stage, the learned Senior counsel brings to our notice a few observations in the order impugned and expresses concern that these observations are likely to influence the prayer for anticipatory bail/bail in the ongoing criminal investigation. Having regard to the above submission, we observe that any observations in the order impugned shall be treated as having been made for the purposes of disposing the case pending before the High Court and an application filed by the petitioners shall be considered independently on its own merits. With the above observations, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of."
5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that Cr.W.J.C. No. 2551 of 2024 remained pending before this Court till 21.04.2025, as such, the petitioners filed ABP No.705/2025 on 21.03.2025. It is submitted that during pendency of ABP No.705/2025, the Cr.W.J.C. No. 2551 of 2024 came to be rejected by an order dated 22.04.2025, it was thereafter ABP No.705/2025 was taken up and the learned Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53291 of 2025(4) dt.09-02-2026 5/14 District Court granted no coercive action against the petitioners by an order dated 03.05.2025, but thereafter, an application came to be filed from the side of the informant casting aspersion on the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who, had granted no coercive action, as such, the case was transferred to another learned Additional Sessions Judge and the anticipatory bail application of the petitioners came to be rejected by an order dated 30.05.2025. It is submitted that one learned Additional District Judge, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties was pleased to grant no coercive action, when an aspersion came to be cast, leading to transfer of the case, as such the next learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the anticipatory bail application.
6. It is submitted that moment the anticipatory bail application of the petitioners came to be rejected by an order dated 30.05.2025, the police on 19.06.2025 filed an application seeking process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and the said application was allowed by the learned Court on the same day i.e. 19.06.2025. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the nature of dispute is civil but then the police was in a hurry to seek process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. for obvious reason. It is Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53291 of 2025(4) dt.09-02-2026 6/14 next submitted that large number of cases relating to heinous offences are pending before different trial courts but then process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is not being obtained but in chosen cases, the police move with a great speed. It is further submitted that process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is to be obtained for ensuring the presence of the accused before the court and not to aid the police in investigation but then if an accused is absconding in such cases, yes, the police has remedy of moving before the learned trial court bringing to its notice that despite their best efforts, the accused is evading arrest, in such a circumstance, process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is required but then in the instant case, no such endeavours were made by the police for arresting the petitioners. It is submitted that police issued notice under Section 35(3) BNSS to the petitioners and the same was duly replied but a little belatedly. It is further submitted that petitioners in their reply had recorded that all the relevant documents were given to the Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur and other officers for their perusal and investigation and it was also recorded that petitioners are not evading the investigation but then it is submitted that offences for which the instant FIR was instituted carries punishment of more than seven years, as such, when notice under Section 35(3) BNSS Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53291 of 2025(4) dt.09-02-2026 7/14 was issued to the petitioners, it was held that it may be a ploy of the police to call and arrest but then the documents were already submitted to the senior officials after institution of the instant FIR for investigation. It is also submitted that reply of the petitioners to notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS stands recorded at Para-57 of the case diary.
7. Learned Senior counsel next submits that it is an admitted fact that when an agreement was entered in between the informant and the petitioners for completing the Center, the said agreement had an arbitration clause and the agreement itself recorded that the in the event if any dispute arises in between the parties, the same shall be settled by referring the dispute to an arbitrator. It is submitted that since a dispute had arisen, the informant ought to have approached an appropriate forum/authority for getting the dispute referred to an arbitrator instead of filing a criminal case. It is also submitted that it might be a possibility that what the informant alleges is correct or the FIR has been instituted only with a view to coerce the petitioners into submission for ensuring that fanciful demand of the informant is met. It is submitted that petitioners today even are willing to clear the legitimate dues of the informant if any, but then the same requires to be adjudicated by an appropriate Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53291 of 2025(4) dt.09-02-2026 8/14 authority in terms of the agreement. It is also submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decision had deprecated that criminal cases should not be resorted to for recovering monetary dues. It is also submitted that petitioners are businessman and are not criminals and the manner in which process under Section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. has been issued also points to the fact that police was more interested in getting the process issued than making endeavour for arresting the petitioners. It is also submitted that why petitioners would have absconded when they have registered offices in Mumbai and Kolkata. It is also submitted that moment the FIR came to be instituted the petitioners moved before this Court by filing Criminal writ in the year 2024 which remained pending till 21.04.2025, as such, it cannot be said that petitioners were evading the law rather mere availing the remedies available in law, it is submitted that since the criminal writ was pending for a long time, as such the petitioners moved before the learned trial court seeking anticipatory bail and the moment no coercive action was granted an application came to be filed alleging aspersion against the learned Judge who gave no coercive action and the case was transferred and subsequently it got rejected, thereafter the petitioners moved before this Court seeking Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53291 of 2025(4) dt.09-02-2026 9/14 anticipatory bail by filing the instant anticipatory bail application, as such, it cannot be said that petitioners were sitting idle or were not availing their remedy available in law and were absconding which necessitated the police to seek process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that if process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. are issued for mere asking by the learned trial court, that will give unbridled power to the police not to make any endeavour for investigating and arresting the accused. It is also submitted that petitioners are not criminals.
8. Learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners, but then are not in a position to rebut the submissions of the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that agreement entered in between the informant and the petitioners had an arbitrator clause and the said clause itself recorded that in event of dispute, the dispute is to be referred to a learned arbitrator in accordance with law and that petitioners had sent their reply in pursuance of notice issued under Section 35(3) BNSS and that petitioners after institution of the FIR had moved before this Court and the learned trial court, as recorded hereinabove, thus were availing their Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53291 of 2025(4) dt.09-02-2026 10/14 remedies available in law.
9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur is directed to file a counter affidavit duly sworn by him. The counter affidavit shall clearly record that as to what necessitated seeking process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners who are businessman and are having their offices at Mumbai and Kolkata. The counter affidavit shall also with clarity plead that when notice under Section 35(3) BNSS was replied by the petitioners, thereafter what steps were taken by the police, whether the documents provided by the petitioners as recorded in their reply to the Superintendent of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police was not enough for holding an investigation and if it was not enough then what steps were taken by the police after the reply was furnished by the petitioners to the notice under Section 35(3) BNSS. The counter affidavit shall also clearly record that as to whether summons and bailable warrant issued prior to issuance of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was served on the petitioners or not and whether the police before filing an application seeking process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. had verified the said fact from the records of the court or not and if not whether the police in Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53291 of 2025(4) dt.09-02-2026 11/14 mechanical manner could have secured process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. without summons and bailable warrant being served on the petitioners.
10. Of late, it is being seen that in cases involving civil dispute, police is in a hurry, reason is not known but then serious offences are pending and police is sitting idle, the court records for the reason that in several of the cases of kidnapping of girl, it came to the notice of the court that no steps were taken by the police to recover the victim nor process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was sought and when Court intervened, the dead body of victim girls were recovered. The Senior Superintendent of Police shall also with clarity record that as to what steps were taken by the police to arrest the petitioners, whether the police for arresting the petitioners had gone to Mumbai and Kolkata or not, prior to seeking process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and if yes, then the documentary evidence in that regard is also to be annexed with the counter affidavit.
11. Learned APP Mr. Abhay Kumar seeks four weeks time to file counter affidavit.
12. There shall be no coercive action against the petitioners until the anticipatory bail application is finally adjudicated by this Court.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53291 of 2025(4) dt.09-02-2026 12/14
13. Put up this case on 13.03.2026 at 2.45 P.M.
14. At this stage, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 had moved before the Micro and Small Enterprises Felicitation Council by filing an application, in which the informant herein was the Opposite Party, in the said application, it was alleged by the petitioner no.1 that the informant is not paying an amount of Rs.12,56,700/- in terms of Invoice No.TPCK/78/INV/27, 28, 29 and 30+CN01 dated 02.01.2024. The said due was being claimed by the petitioners, in terms of the agreement, entered for which, the instant FIR has been instituted. It is submitted that the said application before the Micro and Small Enterprises Felicitation Council was filed on 23.07.2024, in which the informant was noticed and he appeared, and thereafter, the instant FIR came to be instituted on 26.08.2024. It is thus submitted that petitioner no.1, in terms of the agreement, had moved before the Micro and Small Enterprises Felicitation Council for redressal of his grievance and when the said application was filed by way of counter-blast, the instant FIR was instituted.
15. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant does not dispute what has been submitted by the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53291 of 2025(4) dt.09-02-2026 13/14 learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners but then submits that FIR was instituted prior to informant receiving the notice sent by the council, as such, it cannot be alleged that informant after coming to know that petitioner no.1 had instituted the aforesaid case, thereafter, by way of counter-blast, instituted the instant FIR but then the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant based on instruction submits that informant has appeared and hearing of the dispute was taken up by the council.
16. At this stage, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that MSEFC has also passed an order for initiating an arbitration proceeding for resolving the dispute in between the parties and the date fixed was 21.11.2025, on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that informant is not aware that a proceeding for arbitration has been initiated but then fairly submits that today it has been brought to his notice by the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners about the order passed by the MSEFC. The learned Senior counsel next submits that petitioners for redressal of their grievances moved before an appropriate forum, similarly the informant also ought to have moved before an appropriate forum seeking redressal of his Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53291 of 2025(4) dt.09-02-2026 14/14 grievance in terms of the agreement.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/-
U T