Dileep Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29012 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-180 Year-2024 Thana- INDUSTRIAL AREA District- Vaishali ====================================================== Dileep Kumar S/o Sri Kamleshwar Singh R/o Village- Rahimapur, P.S.- Bidupur, District- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Surajdeo Chaudhary S/O Late Kapildeo Chaudhary, P.S. Audhokik Chetra, District - Vaishali ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mrs. Vaishnavi Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 07-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State as also learned counsel for the O.P. No.2. Perused the case diary.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Industrial Area P.S. Case No. 180 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per prosecution case, the petitioner along with others in connivance with each other have got a forged document on the basis of which the land, belonging to the Informant, was mutated in the name of the accused persons
2/4 and, after that, the same was transferred.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged against him and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the year 1970, the land, in question, was purchased by the father of the petitioner in the name of his wife and till date, the said land is standing in her name. It is further submitted that till date, the Informant has not filed any title suit for declaring the sale deed of the year 1970 as forged and fabricated. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that one Anish Kumar was allegedly arrested in connection with Industrial Area P.S. Case No. 138 of 2024 and in that case the police allegedly manufactured his confessional statement which is out and out false statement.
There is no specific or direct allegation of any overt act against the petitioner rather the same is general and omnibus in nature. It is further submits that the present case is absolutely a civil in nature. The petitioner has five criminal antecedents and is languishing in judicial custody since 21.12.
3/4 rhymes or reason. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners again submits that the co-accused namely Rudal Ray has been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.07.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 39248 of 2025.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State and the Informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.
6. Having heard rival contention of both the parties and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as also taking into account the period of custody of the petitioner, let the petitioner, abovenamed, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court below/concerned Court in connection with Industrial Area P.S. Case No. 180 of 2024, subject to the following conditions;
(i) One of the bailor(s) shall be the own/close family members of the petitioner.
4/4 (ii) The petitioner shall cooperate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and in the event of failure on two consecutive dates without sufficient reasons, his bail bond shall be liable to be cancelled by the court below.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) rishi/- U T