Patna High Court
Rakesh Kumar Singh @ Rakesh SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The petitioner is entitled to bail, subject to a bond and verification of antecedents, as the allegations do not directly implicate him in receiving the money.
Summary
Rakesh Kumar Singh was implicated in a complaint alleging that he facilitated a payment of Rs.1,50,000 and four cheques to an accused who failed to deliver a tractor, leading to charges under IPC sections 420, 406 and 120(B). The petitioner contended that he had no involvement with the agency or the money and possessed a clean criminal record. The State opposed his bail, arguing the seriousness of the alleged offences. The Court examined the complaint and found that the payments were made directly to the second accused, with no evidence of the petitioner receiving any money. Consequently, the Court granted bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedents under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite allegations under IPC sections 420, 406 and 120(B).
- Whether there is sufficient evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged cheating and conspiracy.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 406, 420
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- IPC 420
- cheating
- criminal conspiracy
- Section 482
- Bihar High Court
- antecedent verification
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25809 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-318 Year-2025 Thana- LALGANJ District- Vaishali
======================================================
Rakesh Kumar Singh @ Rakesh Singh S/o Late Kamta SIngh Resident Of
Village - Sirsa Biran, P.S. - Lalganj, Dist. - Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Syed Ehteshamuddin, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 22-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in
connection with Lalganj P.S. Case No. 318 of 2025, for
allegedly having committed offence under Sections 420, 406
and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution story, which has been
lodged on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant to
the effect that the accused no.1 came to the house of the
informant/complainant and told her husband to arrange some
money for purchasing a tractor. On the suggestion given by the
petitioner, the husband of the informant arranged Rs. 1,50,000/-
and he along with the informant and petitioner went to the
agency of the accused no.2 on 25.02.2024 where the accused
no.2 took 4 signed cheque of S.B.I. Branch, Kanti, Muzaffarpur
and Rs. 1,50,000/- from the informant and took the signature on
some blank paper and also took photographs of the informant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25809 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
2/3
and her husband in front of a tractor and assured that the tractor
will be delivered in the evening. When the tractor was not
delivered, the informant and her husband kept on asking the
accused persons with regard to delivery of the contractor, but
the same was not given. Finally a complaint case was filed
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Vaishali vide Complaint
Case No. 2525 of 2024 and the same was sent to the Police for
enquiry. Finally the present case has been lodged on 04.07.2025.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is innocent and has got no concern either with
the agency or its owner. From the allegation levelled in the
complaint petition itself, it appears that the cash amount and the
cheques were handed over to the accused no.2, who is the owner
of the agency. The petitioner has got no concern with the money
and no allegation of taking any money has been levelled against
the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner has got
clean antecedent.
5. The learned APP for the State vehemently
opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Having heard the rival submissions and after
going through the record, it appears that as per the allegation
made in the complaint petition, the payments have been made to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25809 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
3/3
the accused no.2 and even the cheques were handed over to the
accused no.2. Nothing was paid to the petitioner. Considering
the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner, above
named, in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of six
weeks, 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 Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate-VIII Cum Sub Judge-IX, Vaishali at Hajipur in
connection with Lalganj P.S. Case No. 318 of 2025, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the
B.N.S.S., with further condition:
(1) The learned Court concerned shall verify the
criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage, it
is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal
antecedents, the court concerned shall take steps for cancellation
of bail bond of the petitioner. 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)
AjayMishra/-
U T
Checking your session…