Vinod KumarversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30255 of 2026
                          Arising Out of PS. Case No.-88 Year-2025 Thana- DELHA District- Gaya
                 ======================================================
                 Vinod Kumar S/o Krishna Prasad R/o Village- Hulasganj, P.S- Hulasganj,
                 Dist- Jehanabad.

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Aryan Singh, Advocate
                 For the State            :        Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP
                 For the Informant        :        Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   01-07-2026                   Heard learned counsel for the parties.

                                 2. The petitioner has preferred this application for

                   grant of regular bail in connection with Delha P.S. Case no. 88

                   of 2025 registered under sections 316(2), 318(4), 352 and

                   351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

                                 3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states

                   that she purchased a three storied house in question for a total

                   consideration of Rs.40 lakhs from the petitioner. As per the

                   allegations, inspite of the assurance, she did not receive vacant

                   possession of the house/property in question and on reaching the

                   house, it transpired that some other person was residing there.

                   On enquiry, it transpired that there is some transaction between
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30255 of 2026(3) dt.01-07-2026
                                            2/3




          the vendor/petitioner and the person residing in the house

          besides there is also some bank loan against the property in

          question. The informant states that she has been cheated by the

          petitioner inspite of having paid total consideration of Rs.40

          lakhs.

                       4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

          petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case which is a purely

          civil dispute on the face of the allegations. The same arises out of a

          registered sale deed with respect to an immovable property. There is

          no dispute with respect to the fact that the title of the property

          belongs to the petitioner and a registered sale deed was executed in

          favour of the informant. The petitioner is in custody since 20.1.2026

          and has no criminal antecedent. Chargesheet has been submitted in

          the case.

                       5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP

          for the State and learned counsel for the informant. Learned

          counsel for the informant submits that the petitioner is named in

          the FIR and there is direct allegation against him that inspite of

          having taken the total consideration amount of Rs.40 lakhs for

          the property in question, inspite of the assurance, he did not

          handover vacant possession of the house to the informant.

                       6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30255 of 2026(3) dt.01-07-2026
                                                       3/3




                     informant that on earlier occasion, learned counsel for the

                     petitioner had been asked to take instruction as to whether the

                     petitioner was ready to refund the total consideration or not. It

                     may only be observed here that the same is not reflected from

                     the order dated 11.5.2026.

                                  7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

                     taking into consideration the nature of allegation against the

                     petitioner in the FIR together with the petitioner having

                     remained in custody since 20.1.2026, not having any criminal

                     antecedent and chargesheet having been submitted in the case,

                     the Court directs the petitioner to be enlarged on bail in connection

                     with Delha P.S. Case no. 88 of 2025 on furnishing bail bond of

                     Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like

                     amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial

                     Magistrate, Gaya.



                                                 (Partha Sarthy, J)
sauravkrsinha/-

U      T