Rajeev Thakur v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42948 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-118 Year-2025 Thana- MAJHAULIA District- West Champaran ====================================================== 1.

Rajeev Thakur S/o Late Paras Thakur R/o Village- Jaitiya, P.S.- Chanpatiya, Distt.- West Champaran 2.

Ramvinay Singh @ Loha Singh S/o Jwala Singh R/o vill - Laukariya, P.S. - Chanpatiya, Distt.- West Champaran 3.

Rakesh Kumar Singh S/o Nagendra Singh R/o vill - Shyampur Kotraha, P.S. - Nautan, distt.- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Brij Kishor Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pawan Kumar Chaurasia ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 16-07-2025 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 308(5), 318(4), 316(2), 336(1), 335, 338, 336(3), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that Arun Kumar got prepared a sale deed from the informant for purchasing 10 Dhur 10 Dhurki land, as would manifest from page-2 of the sale deed, but Arun, in connivance

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42948 of 2025(2) dt.16-07-2025 2/3 with petitioners and other accused persons, manipulated page-2 of the sale deed by changing it and recorded 10 khata 10 dhur 10 dhurki land and got the same registered.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that the sale deed was registered as such it cannot be construed that the informant was not aware what was there in the document. It is also submitted that even if the page No. 2 of the sale deed was changed, but then the same was changed prior to registration of the sale deed, but still the informant executed the sale deed. It is next submitted that petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 are alleged to be witness on the sale deed while there is no specific allegation against petitioner No. 2. It is further submitted that the informant has also filed title Suit No. 10 of 2025 which is pending adjudication in the Court of learned Sub-Judge-I, Betiah, for getting the sale deed cancelled. It is thus submitted that whether it would be prudent for the Court to send the petitioners to jail when TS No. 10 of 2025 is pending adjudication. 5.

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

6.

Considering the submissions made by the learned

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42948 of 2025(2) dt.16-07-2025 3/3 counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Majhauliya P.S. Case No. 118 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T