Patna High Court
Raj Kumar @ Raj Kumar RamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The Court ordered anticipatory bail for the petitioners, subject to a bail bond and conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Summary
The petitioners, four residents of Mathurapur village, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a land‑title dispute case (Piprakothi PS Case No. 352 of 2025). The FIR alleged offences under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, claiming they had purchased land from the informant who later contested the title. The petitioners contended that the land actually belonged to another seller, supported by a registered sale deed, and that the informant’s claim was unfounded; they also highlighted clean antecedents for one petitioner and minor prior records for the others. The State opposed bail, characterising the matter as a civil title dispute rather than a criminal offence. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to a Rs.30,000 bond per person and conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a land‑title dispute where the FIR alleges offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the allegations constitute cognizable offences warranting arrest.
- Whether the petitioners' prior criminal antecedents preclude the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 2(1)(d), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 3(5), 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- land dispute
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- title dispute
- bail bond
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21728 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-352 Year-2025 Thana- PIPRAKOTHI District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. Raj Kumar @ Raj Kumar Ram Son of Late Jatan Ram Resident of village
-Mathurapur PS- Turkauliya District -East champaran
2. Umesh Kumar yadav Son of Gobari Rai @ Govari Rai Resident of village
-Mathurapur PS- Turkauliya District -East champaran
3. Ram Pravesh yadav @ Ram Pravesh Prasad Yadav Son of Yodolal Rai
Resident of village -Mathurapur PS- Turkauliya District -East champaran
4. Yogendra Rai Son of Sitaram Rai Resident of village -Mathurapur PS-
Turkauliya District -East champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shanti Bhushan Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Murli Dhar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
2 08-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending arrest in
connection with Piprakothi P.S. Case No. 352 of 2025 lodged on
13.10.2025, for the offence punishable under Section 318(4),
336(3), 338, 340(2) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023.
3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against
six named accused persons including the present petitioners.
The allegation in the FIR is that the informant is the purchaser
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21728 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
2/3
of a particular piece of land in the year 2020 and the petitioners
have purchased the same land from other persons. When the
informant received information that his land was purchased by
the accused persons, then he has filed a criminal case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence.
Counsel submits that from the content of the FIR, it is clear that
the informant has categorically stated that he has purchased the
land in the year 2020, but mutation of the said land has been
rejected, which is annexed as Annexure-3 of the present
application. Counsel submits that the said land actually belongs
to another person from whom the petitioners have purchased
vide registered sale deed which is annexed as Annexure-2 of the
present application. Counsel submits that the rejection has been
made in the year 2020-21 and latest registry is of the petitioner
nos.1, 2 & 3. Petitioner no.4 is the identifier only. Counsel
further submits that the petitioner no.1 has clean antecedent,
whereas, petitioner nos.2, 3 & 4 have one criminal antecedent
each.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
bail of the petitioners but fairly submits that it is a title dispute
between the two purchasers.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21728 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
3/3
6. As such, in the present facts and circumstances of
this case, let the above named petitioners be released on
anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the
Trial Court within a period of 4 weeks from today, on furnishing
bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) each as
mentioned in Section 2(1)(d) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 to the
satisfaction of J.M. 1st Class, East Champaran, Motihari, in
connection with Piprakothi P.S. Case No. 352 of 2025, subject
to the conditions as laid down U/s 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.