Patna High Court
Vijay Rai @ Vijay RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to a Rs.10,000 bail bond, two sureties, and conditions of cooperation and possible cancellation for non‑cooperation.
Summary
The petitioner, Vijay Rai, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a land‑fraud case (Garkha P.S. Case No. 632 of 2025) where the informant paid Rs. 6,50,000 to co‑accused Rakesh Kumar Singh for a plot of land that later turned out to have a defective title. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner facilitated the meeting between the informant and the accused and therefore bore criminal liability under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 126(2), 115(2), 352 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. The petitioner contended that his role was limited to arranging the meeting and that the primary culpability lay with Rakesh Kumar Singh, who had executed a refund agreement. The State opposed bail, citing the petitioner’s alleged participation and prior criminal antecedent. The Court, after considering the facts, held that the petitioner could be released on anticipatory bail provided he cooperates with the investigation and complies with conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., including furnishing a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. despite alleged involvement in cheating and land fraud.
- Whether the petitioner’s role in arranging the meeting makes him liable under the charged sections of the B.N.S.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent precludes the grant of bail.
- What conditions may be imposed under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S. for the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- cheating
- land fraud
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 BNS
- bail conditions
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25886 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-632 Year-2025 Thana- GARKHA District- Saran
======================================================
Vijay Rai @ Vijay Ray S/o Ramawatar Rai Resident of Village- Tikhan
Maricha, P.S.- Garkha, Distt.- Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dewanand Tiwari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shantanu Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
2 24-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Garkha P.S. Case No. 632 of 2025 in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 316(2),
318(4), 126(2), 115(2), 352, 3(5) of the BNS.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant purchased
land from co-accused Rakesh Kumar Singh for Rs. 6,50,000/-
based on false assurance that the title was clear. Following the
transaction, it was discovered that the land had been previously
sold by the father of the accused and despite a written agreement
to refund the money, the accused person, Rakesh Kumar Singh
refused to return the consideration amount.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it
would be apparent from the narration of the first information
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25886 of 2026(2) dt.24-04-2026
2/3
report itself that the role of the petitioner is confined to holding a
meeting between the informant and one Rakesh Kumar Singh,
who was owner of the land which was shown to the informant by
the petitioner. It is further submitted that admittedly, the amount of
Rs. 6,50,000/- was paid to Rakesh Kumar Singh, in lieu of the
registry of the said plot of land. Further, the said Rakesh Kumar
Singh also executed an agreement separately stating therein that if
title of the land would be defective, he would return the amount to
the informant. On such facts, it has been submitted that it is
Rakesh Kumar Singh, who is mainly responsible for any allegation
of cheating the informant.
5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the
application for anticipatory bail on the ground that the petitioner
also had a role to play in the said transaction and he also has
criminal antecedent.
6. In response of the same, it has been submitted that the
petitioner is on bail in the said cases.
7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances
and also considering the fact that the registry of land was made by
one Rakesh Kumar Singh and money was also paid to him, let the
above named petitioner, in the event of his arrest or surrender
before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from
today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25886 of 2026(2) dt.24-04-2026
3/3
(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each
to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is
pending/successor court in connection with Garkha P.S. Case No.
632 of 2025, subject to the condition as laid down under Section
438 (2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S., subject to the
conditions that:
(I) One of the bailors will be a family member/close
relative.
(II) The petitioner shall cooperate in the
investigation/trial and in case of non-cooperation, the prosecution
would be at liberty to move an application for cancelling the bail
bonds of the petitioner.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
priyanka/-
U T
Checking your session…