Krishna SinghversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20995 of 2026
                 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-174 Year-2006 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE - BIKRAMGANJ
                                                     District- Rohtas
                 ======================================================
           1.     Krishna Singh S/O Ayodhya Singh R/O Village- Karma, P.S.- Surjpura,
                  District- Rohtas
           2.    Ramji Singh S/O Ayodhya Singh R/O Village- Karma, P.S.- Surjpura,
                 District- Rohtas

                                                                            ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                   Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Satyendra Kumar Village Goshaldih PS suryapura District Rohtas

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :    Mr. Gopal Krishna Nishant, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :    Mr. Md. Aslam Ansari, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   02-04-2026                      Heard Mr. Gopal Krishna Nishant, learned counsel

                   for the petitioners as well as Md. Aslam Ansari, learned

                   Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

                               2. Petitioners seeks bail who are in custody since

                   19.01.2026 in connection with Complaint Case No. 174 of 2006

                   for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467,

                   471/34 of Indian Penal Code.

                               3.    According to prosecution case, the informant,

                   namely, Satyendra Kumar alleged that the petitioners took

                   money from him in the name of registry of land but did not do

                   the same.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20995 of 2026(2) dt.02-04-2026
                                            2/3




                      4. Earlier the petitioners had been granted anticipatory

          bail vide order dated 13.08.2008 in Cr. Misc. No. 28890 of 2008

          but they could not fill up the bail bond in the said case.

                      5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that

          petitioners have clean antecedent and they have falsely been

          implicated in the present case.

                      6. Learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions

          fairly submits that petitioners are ready to pay Rs. 1,33,000/- to

          the complainant at the time of furnishing bail bond.

                      6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

          State as well as learned counsel for the Informant have

          vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.

                       7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,

          let the petitioners, above named, 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

          Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bikramganj, Rohtas in

          connection with Complaint Case No. 174 of 2006, subject to the

          following conditions:-

                       i. At the time of furnishing bail bond, the petitioners

          shall produce a demand draft of Rs. 1,33,000/- (Rupees One

          Lakh Thirty Three Thousand) in favour of the complainant and
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20995 of 2026(2) dt.02-04-2026
                                                        3/3




                      learned court below is directed to handover the said demand

                      draft to the complainant or his representative.

                                   ii. Petitioners 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 their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient

                      reason, their bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

                                   iii. If the petitioners tamper with the evidence or the

                      witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to

                      move for cancellation of bail.

                                   iv. And further condition that the court below shall

                      verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at

                      any stage it is found that the petitioner have concealed their

                      criminal antecedents, the court below shall take step for

                      cancellation of bail bond 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.



                                             (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-

U      T