Pintu Yadav @ Pintu Kumar Yadav @ Manoj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51062 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-231 Year-2024 Thana- CHAKAND District- Gaya ====================================================== Pintu Yadav @ Pintu Kumar Yadav @ Manoj Kumar S/o- Chhote Lal Yadav Village- Pura Ps- Tekari Dist- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Aryan Singh, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Abhay Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER 11-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable u/s 318(4), 316(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61 of the B.N.S.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner in conspiracy with the other co-accused persons is alleged to have prepared forged documents and registered a false case bearing Chakand P.S. Case No. 225 of 2024 regarding theft of Mahindra XUV 500 in order to make a false insurance claim upon the insurance company.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the petitioner is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51062 of 2025(2) dt.11-08-2025 2/3 neither the owner of the vehicle nor the subsequent purchaser of the vehicle which was said to have been stolen. It is also submitted that the present case is lodged without proper verification of the document and on vague information, the present FIR has been lodged alleging therein that the petitioner prepared the forged document and was trying to take insurance claim from the insurance company, which is not possible as he was not the owner of the said vehicle. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the petitioner has clean antecedent, let the above named petitioner, in the event of his arrest/surrender within a period of four weeks from today, be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court concerned, Gaya, in connection with Chakand P.S. Case No. 231 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharitya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.), with further condition/s:-

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51062 of 2025(2) dt.11-08-2025 3/3 (i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioner.

(ii) The petitioner will remain present on each and every date fixed by the Court below, if so required by the learned Trial Court.

(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bonds of the petitioner will be liable to be canceled by the Court concerned.

(iv) If the petitioner is found involved in similar nature of offence in future, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail bonds.

(v) The learned Court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step 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 the same or in the name of verification.

7. This application stands allowed.

(Sourendra Pandey, J) Jyoti/- U T