Krishna Murari Ojha v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37632 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-164 Year-2024 Thana- DUMRAO District- Buxar ====================================================== Krishna Murari Ojha Son of Late Prahalad Ojha, Resident of VillageKharahatad, PS- Simari, District- Buxar ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Navendu Prakash, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Md. Shakir Ahmad, APP For the Informant :
Dr. Kamal Deo Sharma, Advocate Mr. Tushar Vaibhav, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 08-10-2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Dumrao P.S. Case no.164 of 2024, registered under sections 307, 341, 323, 324, 354, 384, 386 and 387 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that the land in question was purchased in her name by her husband. On the date of occurrence it transpired that the accused persons including Sunil Yadav and several others came and started to erect a boundary on the land of the petitioner. On protest by her elder brother-in-law, it is stated that he was assaulted. Thereafter, Sunil Yadav assaulted the informant also. On the other persons gathering, the informant and others were
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37632 of 2025(5) dt.08-10-2025 2/3 somehow saved. Thereafter, information was given to the police station.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. He was falsely implicated in the case in course of investigation. He happens to be the Circle Inspector of the area in question. As per the prosecution case it is stated that the same plot of land was sold by one another person in favour of Sunil Yadav in conspiracy with the officials including the petitioner herein. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has absolutely no role to play in the entire occurrence and the dispute, if any, between the informant and Sunil Yadav and others is purely civil in nature. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the investigation.
5. The application for anticipatory bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant. Learned counsel for the informant submits that the deed with respect to the land of the informant was firstly executed by her husband in favour of Vijendra Prasad. Thereafter with the conspiracy of the accused persons including the petitioner herein who happens to be the Circle Inspector, the deed with respect to the same piece of land was executed by one Surendra Prasad in favour of Sunil Yadav who happens to be a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37632 of 2025(5) dt.08-10-2025 3/3 veteran criminal. It is submitted that substantial material has transpired in course of investigation of the conspiracy of this petitioner in the entire occurrence.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the nature of allegation in the F.I.R. together with the material that has transpired in course of investigation against the petitioner, in the facts of the case it is directed that the petitioner above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks, be released on anticipatory bail in connection with Dumrao P.S. Case no.164 of 2024 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar.
(Partha Sarthy, J) avinash/- U T