Narayan Prasad Yadav @ Narayan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56950 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-367 Year-2014 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== 1.
Narayan Prasad Yadav @ Narayan Yadav S/O Late Dashrath Yadav R/O Village- Dharmraychak, P.S- Lakhisarai, Distt.- Lakhisarai. 2.
Sudhir Kumar Satyam @ Sudhir Yadav S/O Narayan Yadav R/O VillageDharmraychak, P.S- Lakhisarai, Distt.- Lakhisarai. 3.
Arun Yadav S/O Nago Yadav R/O Village- Goddih, P.S- Chanan, Distt.- Lakhisarai.
4.
Dharmvir Kumar S/O Nago Yadav R/O Village- Goddih, P.S- Chanan, Distt.- Lakhisarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Mayank Bilochan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Nagendra Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 29-08-2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Complaint Case no.367C of 2014 registered under sections 323, 504, 467, 417 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation in the complaint is that while the complainant had sold his land to Geeta Devi, the petitioners were objecting the said Geeta Devi upon constructing a house on the said land on the basis of some forged agreement to sale.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56950 of 2025(2) dt.29-08-2025 2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present matter arises out of a complaint case. As a matter of fact there was an agreement between the petitioners and the complainant for the sale and purchase of the said plot of land but the complainant subsequently sold it to Geeta Devi in violation of the said agreement. It was for this reason that the petitioners were raising objection. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that a compromise was arrived at between the parties and the copy of the joint compromise has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the petition and hence, the petitioner did not take steps for approaching the Court but recently bailable warrants were issued whereafter they got knowledge of the present status of the case. The petitioners have no criminal antecedent and undertake to co-operate in case/trial.
5. The application for anticipatory bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State.
6.Taking into consideration the fact that the matter relates to civil consequences and also considering the fact that the there was compromise between the parties, it is directed that the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks, be released on anticipatory bail in connection with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56950 of 2025(2) dt.29-08-2025 3/3 Complaint Case no.367C of 2014 on each of them furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending, subject to the condition laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S, 2023. (Soni Shrivastava, J) Harsh/- U T