Manoj Rai @ Manoj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25953 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-176 Year-2024 Thana- INDUSTRIAL AREA District- Vaishali ====================================================== Manoj Rai @ Manoj Kumar S/o Late Ram Prasad Rai R/o Village- Hilalpur, P.S- Industrial Area, District- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner :
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For the State :
Md. Aslam Ansari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 13-05-2025 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that this petitioner, in connivance with other F.I.R. named accused persons, on the basis of forged sale deed, got the land of informant mutated in their names.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. Petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case merely because he happens to be son of co-accused Ram Prasad Rai who was witness to the alleged sale deed in question. Even as per prosecution case, the alleged sale deed
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25953 of 2025(2) dt.13-05-2025 2/2 was executed in the year 1968 and at the relevant time, this petitioner was not even born and has got no concern with the land in question or the mutation case bearing Mutation Case No. 9330R27 of 2023-24. Petitioner is not the beneficiary of the said transaction. It is further submitted that the dispute is with regard to mutation of land which is purely civil in nature.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. Considering the nature of accusation, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is allowed.
7. Accordingly, in the event of arrest/surrender within a period of eight weeks from today, let the above named petitioner be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Industrial Area P.S. Case No. 176 of 2024, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S..
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) shashank/- U T