Vinod Kumar Rai @ Vinod Rai v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 48797 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2108 Year-2022 Thana- BHAGALPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Vinod Kumar Rai @ Vinod Rai Son of Jannardhan Rai R/O Vill.- Mahsaar, P.S.- Kasimabad, Dist.- Gaziur, UP ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Usha Rai Wife of Vijay Shankar Rai R/O Hardaspur, P.S.- Karimuddinpur, Dist.- Ghazipur, State- Uttar Pradesh ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Sanjeev Mishra, Sr. Advocate :
Ms. Manini Jaiswal, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP For the informant :
Ms. Simran Kumari, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 13-10-2025 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 2108 of 2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 468, 467, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Informant is a blind lady and petitioner is her own brother. According to allegation, at the pretext of getting her thumb impression on partition deed, the petitioner obtained her signature on a sale deed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 48797 of 2024(13) dt.13-10-2025 2/2
4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is ready to pay Rs. 9,69,000/- to his sister (informant) and he has come with cheques of Rs. 9,69,000/- vide cheque nos. 009322, 009323, 009324, for handing ti over to the informant.
5. On the other hand, the learned APP and learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the market value of the share of the informant, which the petitioner sold, is more than Rs. 60,00,000/- (rupees sixty lakhs), and this meager amount is not acceptable by her. She has also submitted that petitioner has committed heinous act by deceiving a blind lady, who is nonetheless but the own sister of the petitioner.
6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, it is rejected. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) AjayMishra/- U T