Ravindra Rai v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4404 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1015 Year-2024 Thana- MAHUA District- Vaishali ====================================================== Ravindra Rai son of Late Budhan Rai Resident of Village- Mahua Singh Rai, P.S.- Mahua, District- Vaishali ... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Arjun Manjhi son of Late Vishwanath Manjhi Resident of Village- Mahua Singh Rai, P.S.- Mahua, District- Vaishali ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s :
Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rajeev Ranjan No. II, Advocate Ms. Priyanka Kumari, Advocate For the State :
Ms. Usha Kumari 1, APP For the Informant :
Ms. Rina Sinha, Advocate Mr. Dhirendra Prasad Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 23-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the informant and learned APP for the State.
2. This memo of appeal has been preferred against the order dated 25.09.2025 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge-SC/ST Act-cum-District and Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in A.B.P. No. 2585 of 2025 arising out of Mahua P.S. Case No. 1015 of 2024 registered under Sections 420, 147, 341, 342, 363, 323, 504, 506 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(r), (s) (w) of SC/ST Act whereby and where under the learned Court has rejected the anticipatory bail of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4404 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026 2/3 appellant and the above noted case is pending in the Court of the learned Exclusive Special Judge-SC/ST Act-cum-District and Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur.
3. As per allegation, the accused persons forcibly got registered a sale deed from the informant in respect of his house.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. The FIR has been lodged after a period of eight months, without giving plausible reason for the delay. It is not possible for a person to get a sale-deed registered in his favour in registry office by putting coercion upon anyone.
5. Learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant and submitted that the appellant not only forcibly got registered a sale deed but also abused the informant in filthy words by calling his caste name.
6. There is no explanation of delay in lodging of the FIR after eight months of the occurrence. The allegation appears to be false.
7. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstance, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 25.09.2025 passed by the learned Exclusive Special
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4404 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026 3/3 Judge-SC/ST Act-cum-District and Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in A.B.P. No. 2585 of 2025 arising out of Mahua P.S. Case No. 1015 of 2024, is set aside.
8. Accordingly, let the appellant, in the event of his arrest or surrender within four weeks before the learned court below, 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 Exclusive Special JudgeSC/ST Act-cum-District and Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection Mahua P.S. Case No. 1015 of 2024. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) priyanka/- U T