Patna High Court
Raghuveer Prasad Yadav @ Raghubir Prasad @ Raghubir RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied because a valid process under Sections 82 and 83 of the CrPC had already been issued.
Summary
The petitioners, Raghuveer Prasad Yadav and his sons, sought anticipatory bail after a complaint (Case No. 247 of 2013) alleged they forged a sale deed, assaulted the complainant and her son, and stole gold ornaments. The complaint cited offences under IPC sections 406, 323, 427, 354, 379 and 504. The State argued that criminal processes under Sections 82 and 83 of the CrPC had already been issued on 13 January 2026. The petitioners contended that the processes were issued without a service report and that they were unaware of the case’s pendency. The Court examined the records and found that the issuance of the processes was proper and that anticipatory bail could not be granted once such processes are in force. Consequently, the Court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Can anticipatory bail be granted when a process under Sections 82 and 83 of the CrPC has already been issued against the accused?
- Does the lack of a service report or the accused’s unawareness of the case pendency affect the grant of anticipatory bail?
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 82, 83
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 354, 379, 406, 427, 504
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- forged deed
- assault
- theft
- IPC
- CrPC
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34282 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-247 Year-2013 Thana- EAST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT
District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. Raghuveer Prasad Yadav @ Raghubir Prasad @ Raghubir Rai S/o Mangani
Rai R/o Village - Bagaha, P.S. - Ghorahasan, Dist. - East Champaran.
2. Mukesh Rai @ Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh Kumar Yadav S/o Raghuveer
Prasad Yadav @ Raghubir Rai @ Raghubir Prasad R/o Village - Bagaha,
P.S. - Ghorahasan, Dist. - East Champaran.
3. Akhilesh Rai @ Aklesh Prasad Yadav S/o Raghuveer Prasad Yadav @
Raghubir Rai @ Raghubir Prasad R/o Village - Bagaha, P.S. - Ghorahasan,
Dist. - East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Vidya Devi W/o Ramvilas Singh R/o Village - Bagaha, P.S. - Ghorahasan,
Dist. - East Champaran.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Suraj Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 19-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Complaint Case No. 247 of 2013 registered for the
offences punishable under sections 406, 323, 427, 354, 379 and
504 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the complaint case which has been lodged
on the basis of the complaint made by the complainant to the
effect that the petitioners have executed the sale deed of the land
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34282 of 2026(2) dt.19-05-2026
2/2
of the complainant bearing Khata No. 70, Khesra No. 2998 area
measuring 51/2 dhurs by creating forged deed in their name
through co-accused Phuljhari Devi. When they tried to take
possession of the said land, the complainant protested upon
which they abused and assaulted her and her son. The accused
persons also snatched her gold ornaments worth Rs. 8,000/-.
4. At the outset, the learned A.P.P. for the State
submits that the process under section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. have
been issued. Upon which the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that process under Section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. have been
issued, on the same date, without awaiting for any service report
with regard to issuance of summons, warrants and the
petitioners were not aware about the pendency of the present
case.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and after going through the records, it appears that process
under section 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. have been issued against
the petitioner on 13.01.2026, therefore, I am not inclined to
grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the same is
rejected.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
vinita/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.