Rajnish Kumar Jha v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13313 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-166 Year-2025 Thana- ARER District- Madhubani ====================================================== 1.
Rajnish Kumar Jha S/o- Late Arjun Jha Resident of Village- Brahmpura PSArer District- Madhubani, Residing at A-39 Block-A Phase-3, Vikash Nagar Uttam Nagar, West Delhi 2.
Pinki Devi @ Pinki Jha @ Jha Devi W/o- Rajnish Kumar Jha Resident of Village- Brahmpura PS- Arer District- Madhubani, Residing at A-39 BlockA Phase-3, Vikash Nagar Uttam Nagar, West Delhi ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Yashraj Bardhan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Vinod Shanker Modi, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 01-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Arer P.S. Case No.166 of 2025, for having allegedly committed offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 324(4), 316(2), 318(4), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
3. As per the prosecution story, the petitioners used to call the informant Dian and when she denied to go for Panchayati, they tried to burn the informant and her children. Further, the accused persons have damaged the house of the informant by using J.C.B. and the petitioner no.1 is said to have fraudulently transferred Rs.2,50,000/- from the account of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13313 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026 2/3 informant's husband in his account in the name of executing sale deed, but have not executed the sale deed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 and the husband of the informant are full brothers and there is a dispute in between the brothers with regard to partition of the property. The petitioner no.1 resides with his family in Delhi and deals in spare parts of vehicle. It is further submitted that the petitioner no.1 gave tractor, motorcycle and other articles to the husband of the informant, keeping in view his financial conditions, but the husband of the informant was not taking care of the same and started selling the articles given by him, for which an altercation took place and the husband of the informant himself burnt the motorcycle. It is lastly submitted that the petitioners have got clean antecedent.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for bail.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the petitioner no.1 and the husband of the informant are full brothers and there is dispute in between them with regard to partition of the property and further the allegation with regard to taking/transferring Rs.2,50,000/- has not been proved, let petitioners, above-named,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13313 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026 3/3 in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Benipatti in connection with Arer P.S. Case No.166 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. with a further condition that:- The learned court concerned shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedent, the court concerned shall take steps for cancellation of bail bonds of the petitioners. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Ritesh Kumar, J.) Sanjay/- U T