Rakesh Kumar Singh @ Rakesh Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25809 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-318 Year-2025 Thana- LALGANJ District- Vaishali ====================================================== Rakesh Kumar Singh @ Rakesh Singh S/o Late Kamta SIngh Resident Of Village - Sirsa Biran, P.S. - Lalganj, Dist. - Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ajay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Syed Ehteshamuddin, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 22-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Lalganj P.S. Case No. 318 of 2025, for allegedly having committed offence under Sections 420, 406 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution story, which has been lodged on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant to the effect that the accused no.1 came to the house of the informant/complainant and told her husband to arrange some money for purchasing a tractor. On the suggestion given by the petitioner, the husband of the informant arranged Rs. 1,50,000/- and he along with the informant and petitioner went to the agency of the accused no.2 on 25.02.2024 where the accused no.2 took 4 signed cheque of S.B.I. Branch, Kanti, Muzaffarpur and Rs. 1,50,000/- from the informant and took the signature on some blank paper and also took photographs of the informant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25809 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026 2/3 and her husband in front of a tractor and assured that the tractor will be delivered in the evening. When the tractor was not delivered, the informant and her husband kept on asking the accused persons with regard to delivery of the contractor, but the same was not given. Finally a complaint case was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Vaishali vide Complaint Case No. 2525 of 2024 and the same was sent to the Police for enquiry. Finally the present case has been lodged on 04.07.2025.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has got no concern either with the agency or its owner. From the allegation levelled in the complaint petition itself, it appears that the cash amount and the cheques were handed over to the accused no.2, who is the owner of the agency. The petitioner has got no concern with the money and no allegation of taking any money has been levelled against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner has got clean antecedent.
5. The learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Having heard the rival submissions and after going through the record, it appears that as per the allegation made in the complaint petition, the payments have been made to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25809 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026 3/3 the accused no.2 and even the cheques were handed over to the accused no.2. Nothing was paid to the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VIII Cum Sub Judge-IX, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Lalganj P.S. Case No. 318 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., with further condition:
(1) The learned Court concerned shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedents, the court concerned shall take steps for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. 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) AjayMishra/- U T