← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./74227/2025bail granted

Satyendra Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2025-11-17Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74227 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-102 Year-2025 Thana- Krishnabraham District- Buxar ====================================================== Satyendra Singh S/o Late Bhikhari Singh R/o Village- Madan Dihra, P.S.- Itarhi, Dist.- Buxar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dr.Kamal Deo Sharma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Narsingh Tanti, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 17-11-2025 Heard Mr. Dr. Kamal Deo Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Narsingh Tanti, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Krishnabrahm P.S. Case No. 102 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 15.07.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 351(2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.

3. As per the First Information Report, the petitioner Satendra Singh promised her a teaching job and fraudulently obtained Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lakh) from her. He subsequently demanded Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five thousand) before issuing the joining letter, which she transferred to his son's account via Phonepe. Despite her compliance, the petitioner made excuses and took an additional Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. Two lakhs) cash from her.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74227 of 2025(2) dt.17-11-2025 2/3 The informant neither received the promised job nor got her money back. When she demanded repayment, the accused threatened to kill her.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has one criminal antecedent in which he is on bail and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. In fact the petitioner has given the loan to the informant and informant has paid the loan amount through Phonepe. From perusal of the FIR, it appears that the date of occurrence is 12.06.2023 but the FIR was lodged on 15.07.2025, after two years, without assigning any plausible and convincing reason for the delay in lodging of the FIR, which creates serious doubt about the prosecution case. In support of the delay, from the FIR it appears that the present dispute is civil in nature.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid fact and taking into account the unexplained delay of more than two years in lodging of the FIR, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74227 of 2025(2) dt.17-11-2025 3/3 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar in connection with Itarhi P.S. Case No. 102 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:- i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

iii. And further condition that the 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 bond in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) tusharika/- U T