Patna High CourtCR. MISC./32882/2025bail granted

Manbodh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2025-09-08Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32882 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-613 Year-2024 Thana- WEST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT District- West Champaran ====================================================== Manbodh Yadav S/o Ghurmari Yadav @ Dhurbhari Yadav R/o Village- Jaini Tola, Police station- Bathuwariya, District- west Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar 2.

Udho Sah @ Mantu Sah S/o Shri Ramayan Sah R/o vill- Vishwas, P.O.- Sirisiya, P.s.- Sirisiya O.P., Distt.- West Champaran ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Brij Kishor Mishra, Adv.

For the State :

Mr.Shailendra Kumar, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 08-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 613C of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

3. According to allegation, the petitioner sold his vehicle to the complainant for Rs. 3,55,000/- concealing the fact that there was a loan on the vehicle. It has also been mentioned in the complaint petition that out of Rs. 3,55,000/-, the petitioner refunded Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant and the rest amount of Rs. 1,55,000/- was not paid by him.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32882 of 2025(4) dt.08-09-2025 2/3 that the petitioner is not owner of the vehicle. As such, the question of selling that vehicle by the petitioner to the complainant does not arise. He has further submitted that the averments made in complaint petition that the petitioner returned Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant is also a false averments.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that concealing the facts regarding the loan against the vehicle, the petitioner sold the same to the complainant and, he paying Rs. 2,00,000/- and took away the vehicle and the rest amount of Rs. Rs. 1,55,000/- was also not paid.

6. During course of the argument, the sale letter was produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which shows that one Sadanand Kumar Singh sold his vehicle to the complainant. It also appears, as stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail petition, that the petitioner is a person of clean antecedent.

7. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, in the event of his arrest or surrender within four weeks before the learned court below, be released on anticipatory 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, Bettiah, West Champaran in connection with Complaint Case No. 613C of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32882 of 2025(4) dt.08-09-2025 3/3 CrPC/482(2) of the BNSS, 2023.

8. After accepting, the learned court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if he is found involved in any other case except the present one, his bail bond shall not be accepted.

9. The petitioner shall cooperate in the disposal of trial and make himself available on each and every date till framing of the charge.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/- U T