Patna High Court
Satyendra Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The Court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail, directing that the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond and sureties.
Summary
The petitioner, Satyendra Kumar Yadav, sought anticipatory bail in a complaint case (No.862 of 2021) alleging offences under Sections 342 and 384 of the IPC, which alleged extortion and wrongful confinement. He contended that the allegations were false, arising from a loan dispute where the complainant failed to repay Rs.8 lakh and issued a dishonoured cheque, leading the petitioner to file a separate complaint. The petition highlighted a one‑year delay in lodging the present complaint, his clean antecedents, and the fact that a co‑accused, Anish Kumar, had already been granted anticipatory bail in a similar matter. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the charges. Considering the general nature of the accusations, the petitioner’s clean record, and the delay, the Court allowed the anticipatory bail, directing release on a bail‑bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to Section 482(2) of the CrPC.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in a complaint case under Sections 342 and 384 IPC.
- Whether the delay in filing the complaint and the petitioner’s clean antecedents justify granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 342, 384
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- extortion
- wrongful confinement
- Indian Penal Code
- Section 342 IPC
- Section 384 IPC
- Section 482 CrPC
- delay in prosecution
- loan dispute
- bail bond
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57043 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-862 Year-2021 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE District-
Rohtas
======================================================
Satyendra Kumar Yadav S/O Ram Sevak Yadav R/O Village- Shivpur, P.S.-
Karghar, District- Rohtas
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ranjan Kumar Aged about 37 years S/o Rang Bahadur singh Vill-
Semaridev , P.s.- Karaghar , District- Rohtas
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manish Ranjan Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ram Bilash Roy Raman, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 16-01-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a complaint
case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 342
and 384 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per complaint case, on 19.01.2021, when
complainant was on his way to civil court, all the accused
persons, including this petitioner, forcibly took him in a vehicle
and demanded Rs. 16,00,000/- as extortion and took his
signature on plain paper. It is further alleged that on 13.2.2021,
when complainant was going to deposit cheque in Sri Finance,
the accused persons snatched away the same. Again on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57043 of 2025(4) dt.16-01-2026
2/3
05.12.2021, the accused persons entered the house of
complainant and assaulted him and his family members and
took away Rs. 50,000/-.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has
committed no offence. As a matter of fact, the complainant took
loan of Rs. 8 lacs from the petitioner for purchasing land on
assurance that he would return entire money after six months
but the same was no returned to the petitioner. On repeated
demands, complainant issued cheque in the name of petitioner
but the same was dishonoured due to insufficiency of fund for
which petitioner filed a Complaint Case No. 785 of 2023 and in
order to create defence in the aforesaid case this false and
concocted case has been lodged. Moreover, the present
complaint case has been lodged after inordinate delay of about
one year which itself raises doubt over veracity of the
prosecution case. It is further submitted that co-accused Anish
Kumar, having similar and identical allegations, has already
been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble
Court vide order dated 02.09.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.
57209 of 2025. Petitioner claims clean antecedents.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57043 of 2025(4) dt.16-01-2026
3/3
opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, general and omnibus nature of accusation, claim based on
parity and clean antecedents of the petitioner, the prayer for
grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is allowed.
7. Accordingly, in the event of arrest/surrender within
a period of eight weeks from today, let the above named
petitioner be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.
10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Rohtas at Sasaram in
connection with Complaint Case No. 862 of 2021, subject to
condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S..
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…