Patna High Court
Rajnish Kumar JhaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The court held that, in the absence of proof of the alleged fraudulent transfer and considering the family dispute, bail should be granted to the petitioners.
Summary
The petitioners, Rajnish Kumar Jha and his wife Pinki Devi, were arrested in connection with a case alleging offences under several sections of the B.N.S., 2023, including attempted arson, damage to property, and fraudulent transfer of Rs.2.5 lakh. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners tried to burn an informant and her children, damaged her house, and fraudulently transferred money without executing a sale deed. The petitioners contended that they are full brothers of the informant’s husband, that the dispute arose from a family property partition, and that the alleged financial fraud was unproven; they also asserted a clean criminal antecedent. The State opposed bail, but the court noted the lack of proof regarding the money transfer and the familial relationship, and therefore granted bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to verification of criminal antecedents under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. The order also stipulated that bail could be cancelled if any concealed antecedent is discovered.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations of fraud and arson constitute sufficient ground to deny bail.
- Whether the prosecution has proved the alleged fraudulent transfer of Rs.2.5 lakh.
- Whether the familial relationship and property dispute affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 115(2), 126(2), 316(2), 318(4), 324(4), 3(5), 351(2), 352
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- property dispute
- fraud
- arson
- family relationship
- section 482
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13313 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-166 Year-2025 Thana- ARER District- Madhubani
======================================================
1. Rajnish Kumar Jha S/o- Late Arjun Jha Resident of Village- Brahmpura PS-
Arer District- Madhubani, Residing at A-39 Block-A Phase-3, Vikash Nagar
Uttam Nagar, West Delhi
2. Pinki Devi @ Pinki Jha @ Jha Devi W/o- Rajnish Kumar Jha Resident of
Village- Brahmpura PS- Arer District- Madhubani, Residing at A-39 Block-
A Phase-3, Vikash Nagar Uttam Nagar, West Delhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yashraj Bardhan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Vinod Shanker Modi, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 01-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Arer P.S. Case No.166 of 2025, for having allegedly
committed offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 324(4),
316(2), 318(4), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
3. As per the prosecution story, the petitioners used to
call the informant Dian and when she denied to go for
Panchayati, they tried to burn the informant and her children.
Further, the accused persons have damaged the house of the
informant by using J.C.B. and the petitioner no.1 is said to have
fraudulently transferred Rs.2,50,000/- from the account of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13313 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
2/3
informant’s husband in his account in the name of executing
sale deed, but have not executed the sale deed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioner no.1 and the husband of the informant are full
brothers and there is a dispute in between the brothers with
regard to partition of the property. The petitioner no.1 resides
with his family in Delhi and deals in spare parts of vehicle. It is
further submitted that the petitioner no.1 gave tractor,
motorcycle and other articles to the husband of the informant,
keeping in view his financial conditions, but the husband of the
informant was not taking care of the same and started selling the
articles given by him, for which an altercation took place and
the husband of the informant himself burnt the motorcycle. It is
lastly submitted that the petitioners have got clean antecedent.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer
for bail.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and taking into consideration that the petitioner no.1 and the
husband of the informant are full brothers and there is dispute in
between them with regard to partition of the property and
further the allegation with regard to taking/transferring
Rs.2,50,000/- has not been proved, let petitioners, above-named,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13313 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
3/3
in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of six
weeks, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Benipatti in connection with
Arer P.S. Case No.166 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid
down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. with a further
condition that:-
The learned court concerned shall verify the criminal
antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage it is found
that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedent, the
court concerned shall take steps for cancellation of bail bonds of
the petitioners. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms
of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose
of or in the name of verification.
(Ritesh Kumar, J.)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…