Rahul Kumar Yadav @ Rahul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71148 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-562 Year-2017 Thana- EAST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT District- East Champaran ====================================================== Rahul Kumar Yadav @ Rahul Kumar Son of Rai Yadav @ Shree Ray Resident of village - Chilrawa, P.S.- Turkauliya, District - East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Smita Kumari Wife of Sri Ajay Kumar Kushwaha Resident of village - Chandi Sthan, P.S.- Govindganj, District - East Champaran. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Abhishek Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 15-04-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No.2.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of N.I. Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the complainant alleges that she had applied for the post of Data Operator in P.H.E.D., Patna and had mentioned her mobile number on the application form, the petitioner made a call on her mobile number and assured her of the job in August, 2016 and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71148 of 2025(3) dt.15-04-2026 2/3 introduced her and her husband to Meena Kumari, who demanded Rs.3, 00,000/-, the complainant accordingly gave Rs.2,90,000/- to the petitioner but she did not get the job, thereafter complainant demanded her money back when two cheques of Rs.40,000/- were issued to the complainant, which on presentation for encashment bounced.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the complainant. It is next submitted that if what has been alleged in the complaint is a true fact, in that event, the complainant equally is involved in committing an offence as she alleges that she paid an amount of Rs. 2,90,000/- to the petitioner for obtaining appointment through back door. It is next submitted that if petitioner is sent to judicial custody the same would amount to sending an accused to jail for not being able to perform an illegality.
5. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No.2 submits that O.P. No.2 presently is not opposing the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71148 of 2025(3) dt.15-04-2026 3/3 anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) 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 Complaint Case No.C-562 of 2017, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T