Patna High Court
Mani Bhushan YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to specified monetary refund conditions and the usual bail bond requirements.
Summary
The petitioners, three individuals from Sheohar district, were implicated in a complaint case (No.2524 of 2024) alleging fraud under IPC sections 420, 468 and 34 for executing a fresh sale deed after receiving Rs 7 lakhs, allegedly concealing a prior sale. They claimed the transaction was a bona‑fide mistake and offered to return the entire amount in installments, which the complainant did not oppose. The petitioners sought anticipatory bail to avoid arrest. The Court, after hearing counsel, granted anticipatory bail on the condition that each petitioner furnish a bail bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties, immediately refund Rs 3,50,000 to the complainant via bank draft, and pay the remaining Rs 3,50,000 in two installments within six months, failing which bail may be cancelled. The order was made without adjudicating the merits of the underlying fraud allegations.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners in a complaint case involving alleged fraud under IPC sections 420, 468 and 34.
- What conditions, if any, may be imposed while granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 420, 468
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- fraud
- sale deed
- IPC 420
- IPC 468
- bail conditions
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42905 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2524 Year-2024 Thana- MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
1. Mani Bhushan Yadav S/o Late Sathu Ray R/o Vill- Marvara Kishunpura,
P.S.- Tariyani, Distt- Sheohar
2. Shashi Bhushan Ray S/o Late Satho Ray R/o Vill- Marvara Kishunpura,
P.S.- Tariyani, Distt- Sheohar
3. Rakesh Ray @ Rakesh Kumar S/o Late Sathu Ray R/o Vill- Marvara
Kishunpura, P.S.- Tariyani, Distt- Sheohar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Nathuni Thakur S/o Late Anandi Thakur R/o Vill- Manikpura, P.S.-
Minapur, Distt- Muzaffapur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sumit Jha, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Zainul Abedin, APP
Mr.Basant Kr. Tripathy, Adv.for OP-2
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
5 08-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a
complaint case punishable for the offence under Sections 420,
468/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. It is alleged that concealing the previous sale and
conveyance, petitioners are alleged to have executed fresh sale-
deed in favour of complainant/opposite party no. 2 after
receiving consideration money of Rs. Seven Lakhs.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it
was a bona-fide mistake on the part of the petitioners and as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42905 of 2025(5) dt.08-01-2026
2/3
such, petitioners are ready to return the alleged money of Rs.
Seven Lakhs in each installment, for which, learned counsel for
the opposite party no. 2 does not oppose.
5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, let the
above named petitioners, in the event of arrest/surrender within
a period of eight weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on
furnishing bail-bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned Judicial Magistrate 2nd Class, (East) Muzaffarpur in
connection with Complaint Case No. 2524 of 2024, subject to
condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. with further
following conditions:
“(A) At the time of furnishing bail-bonds, the
petitioners shall refund Rs. 3,50,000/- (three
lakhs & fifty thousand) through Bank Draft in
favour of Nathuni Thakur (complainant / opposite
party no. 2).
(B) Rest amount i.e. Rs. 3,50,000/- shall be
refunded to the opposite party no. 2 through Bank
Draft in 2 (two) installments within a period of
six months from the date of furnishing bail-
bonds.
(C) If petitioners fail to comply the direction of
this Court, the learned Court below would be at
liberty to cancel the bail-bonds of the
petitioners.”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42905 of 2025(5) dt.08-01-2026
3/3
6. It is made clear that aforesaid order has been
passed only for considering the prayer for anticipatory bail
without going into the merit of the case.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
anay
U T
Checking your session…