Raj Kumar Singh @ Raj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60435 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-181 Year-2023 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE - PATNA CITY District- Patna ====================================================== 1.
Raj Kumar Singh @ Raj Kumar S/o Sakaldeep Singh Resident of Village - Jamanpura, Uspha, P.S - Gaurichak, District - Patna 2.
Gajendra Kumar S/o Ganesh Rai Resident of Village - Jamanpura, Uspha, P.S - Gaurichak, District - Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Dilip Kumar S/o Siya Saran Singh R/o Village - Amarpur, Paizawa, Gulzarbgh Gumati, P.S - Mehandiganj, District - Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Santosh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Pramod Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 18-09-2025 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 offence under Sections 420 and 504 of I.P.C.
3. As per the prosecution case, it is alleged that despite receiving the advance consideration money of Rs. 15.5 lakhs, accused persons refused to execute the land in favour of the complainant or return the amount. It is further alleged that two cheques of Rs. 2,00,000/- each were handed over by the petitioners on 10.01.2023 and 15.01.2023 which, on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60435 of 2025(3) dt.18-09-2025 2/3 presentation, got dishonoured.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are quite innocent and they have committed no offence. As a matter of fact, after receiving the money, petitioners gave it to accused Dinesh Kumar Singh who was the owner of the land and was to execute the land in favour of the complainant. It was co-accused Dinesh Kumar Singh who adopted delaying tactics and due to which dispute arose between the complainant and these petitioners. By filing supplementary affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are ready to deposit a demand draft of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Four Lakhs) in the name of complainant at the time of furnishing bail-bonds in the Nazarat of the trial court.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the bail petition.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the above named petitioners, in the event of arrest/surrender within a period of eight weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M. 1st Class, Patna City, in connection with Complaint Case No. 181 of 2023, subject to condition as laid down under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60435 of 2025(3) dt.18-09-2025 3/3 Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with following conditions:
"(A) At the time of furnishing bail-bond, the petitioner shall deposit demand draft of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Four Lakhs) in the Nazarat of concerned Civil Court and receipt of the same shall be furnished along with bail-bonds.
(B) The aforesaid payment shall be subject to final outcome of the case.
(C) If petitioners fail to comply the direction of this Court, the learned Court below would be at liberty to cancel the bail-bond of the petitioner."
7. This order has been passed, without going into the merit of the case, only for the purpose of considering the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioners.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) K.C.Jha/- U T