Patna High Court
Vijay KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The bail application was rejected, and the petitioner was ordered to remain in custody pending trial.
Summary
Vijay Kumar was arrested in connection with a land‑sale dispute alleged by Manorama Devi, who claimed she paid an advance of Rs 51 lakh for a plot that later turned out to belong to the Housing Board. The prosecution alleged that Kumar received Rs 21 lakh in a joint bank account with Dhiraj Singh and subsequently sold the same land to another party for Rs 53.33 lakh, constituting fraud and offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 120(B) and 419 of the IPC. Kumar denied any transaction and contended that the FIR was based on false allegations. The court noted that Kumar had evaded arrest, surrendered after ten months, and that provisional bail previously granted was cancelled. Considering the alleged fraudulent conduct and the seriousness of the offences, the court rejected the bail application and directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in view of the alleged fraud and the offences under the IPC.
- Whether the evidence of bank transactions and the execution of a sale deed establish a prima facie case of cheating, criminal breach of trust and conspiracy.
- Whether the cancellation of the provisional bail was justified.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 406, 419, 420, 467, 468
Subjects
- bail
- fraud
- cheating
- criminal breach of trust
- conspiracy
- IPC
- judicial custody
- land transaction
- provisional bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59352 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-605 Year-2022 Thana- RAMPUR District- Gaya
======================================================
Vijay Kumar S/O Late Jivan Lal Yadav @ Ram Jivan Yadav R/O Dujra Purvi
Gali, P.S.- Budha Colony, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Patna
2. Manorma Devi W/o Late Bindeshwari Prasad Yadav vill 51 A P Colony P S
Rampur Gaya
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Raghav Prasad, Advocate
Mrs. Urmila Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Jitendra Kumar Singh,APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Shrishti Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
9 17-04-2026 Heard Mr. Raghav Prasad, learned counsel for the
petitioner duly assisted by Mrs. Urmila Kumari, Mr. Pranav
Kumar duly assisted by Ms. Shrishti Singh for the informant
beside Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned APP.
2. The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection
with Rampur P.S. Case No. 605 of 2022 for the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 120(B), 419 of
the Indian Penal Code, lodged on 06.11.2022 by the informant,
Manorama Devi.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that she had an agreement with the petitioner for purchase of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59352 of 2025(9) dt.17-04-2026
2/3
land for consideration amount of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- and advance
amount of total Rs. 51,00,000/- was/were paid to the petitioner.
However, later, it came to the notice of the informant that the
land belongs to the Housing Board and as such, she demanded
money which was not provided which led to the F.I.R.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no
such transaction took place and on the basis of wrong allegation,
FIR has been lodged. The petitioner never received a single
penny from the informant.
5. The informant has appeared and Mr. Pranav Kumar
has taken this Court to the account of the AXIS bank to show
that this petitioner alongwith Dhiraj Singh were operating the
account and on 08.09.2022, the informant has transferred
Rs.21,00,000/- in the said account.
6. The submission is that not only the petitioner
played fraud upon the informant, despite the FIR lodged vide
Rampur P.S. Case No. 605 of 2022 on 06.11.2022, he want
ahead and after six months, executed sale-deed for the same
land for a consideration amount of Rs.53,33,000/-. The said
document is part of the supplementary affidavit filed by the
informant (wrongly stated as petitioner).
7. Having heard the parties, this Court has taken note
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59352 of 2025(9) dt.17-04-2026
3/3
of the fact that despite the provisional bail granted to the
petitioner on 03.07.2024, he chose to remain outside the
purview of judicial net and surrendered only on
19.05.2025(after ten months).
8. This Court has also taken note of the modus
operandi of the petitioner in getting money from one person and
then executing the sale-deed to another person. Rs.21,00,000/-
admittedly went in his joint account with Dhiraj Singh, FIR
lodged in the year 2022, whereafter in the year 2023, he
transferred the same land to someone for a consideration
amount of Rs.53,33,000/-. Certainty, he has played fraud in the
matter.
9. The bail application stands rejected. As the
petitioner is in custody earlier from 13.10.2023 to 03.07.2024
and thereafter after avoiding arrest, once the provisional bail
application was cancelled, from 19.05.2025 till date, the Trial
Court is requested to conclude the trial in next six months.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U T
Checking your session…