Patna High Court
Chuman Patel @ Chuman RautversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Chuman Patel (also known as Chuman Raut), sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case involving multiple offences under the B.N.S. Act, alleging that he was falsely implicated in a land‑mafia scheme orchestrated by Deva Gupta and Sugandh Kumar Gupta. He asserted that he runs a gas agency and has no connection with the accused, and that money seized earlier belonged to him and was returned to his wife. The State opposed bail, arguing that the FIR specifically alleges the petitioner managed illegal land transactions and might abscond if released. The Court, after hearing both sides, granted anticipatory bail on the condition of furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties, one being the petitioner's father, and subject to compliance with Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S. The order also allowed cancellation of bail if the petitioner fails to cooperate or if a charge‑sheet is filed against him.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S. despite the allegations in the FIR.
- Whether the petitioner is likely to abscond or tamper with evidence if released on bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 Cr.P.C.
- Section 482 B.N.S.S.
- false implication
- land mafia
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6204 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-364 Year-2025 Thana- MOTIHARI TOWN District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Chuman Patel @ Chuman Raut Son of Gorkh Raut Resident of Village-
Mathiya, P.S.- Chhatauni, District- East Champaran, Motihari (Bihar)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Hansraj, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 29-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 111(2)(b),
316(2), 318(3), 308(5), 336(3), 338, 318(4) and 3(5) of the
BNS.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has antecedent of two cases and the informant alleges
that Deva Gupta and Sugandh Kumar Gupta are known land
mafia of Motihari city and they have formed a company M/S
Dewrock Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. and are extorting money by
illegally buying and selling land in the district through their
criminal influence, it is further alleged that they execute sale
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6204 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026
2/4
deeds in violation of the registration rules on account of which
there is huge loss to the Government revenue, the act of the
accused are punishable under BNS and BNLA, it is next alleges
that Assistant Registrar, Motihari is also involved in the
occurrence be committed by the accused persons, further Deva
Gupta and Sugandh Kumar Gupta have created an atmosphere
of terror within Motihari city, further, 80 sale deeds have been
appended with the FIR to show their involvement.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is ascertain and submitted that the petitioner is not
related with Deva Gupta and Sugandh Gupta rather runs a gas
agency at Motihari and has also taken franchise of Akash
Institute. It is further submitted that earlier an amount of Rs.
10,25,000/- was seized but then the said money belong to the
petitioner and later police after enquiry returned the said amount
tot he wife of the petitioner. It is also submitted that from
perusal of the FIR it would manifest that first of the allegation is
against Deva Gupta and Sugandh Kumar Gupta and petitioners
is alleged to be managing the illegally sell and purchase of land
made by Deva Gupta through his company M/S Dewrock Infra
Projects Pvt. Ltd. It is further submitted that since petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6204 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026
3/4
recently entered in the business of real estate as such he came to
be implicated.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there is
specific allegation in the FIR that the petitioner manages the sell
and purchase of land made by Dewrock Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.
It is also submitted that if privilege of anticipatory is granted,
the petitioner may abscond on which the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner will
not abscond since he has business within the city of Motihari
and if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted the petitioner will
cooperate in the investigation to prove his innocence.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, let
the petitioner, above-named, in the event of his arrest or
surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released
on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where the case
is pending/Successor Court in connection with Town(East
Champaran) P.S. Case No. 364 of 2025, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the
Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S., with the further condition that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6204 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026
4/4
one of the bailor of the petitioner shall be his father Gorakh
Raut.
7. However, it is made clear that in the event, if any
application is filed by the Investigating Officer before the
learned trial Court bringing to its notice that petitioner, despite
giving assurance to this Court, is not cooperating in the
investigation or is not presenting himself as and when required,
the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds
of the petitioner after recording reasons.
8. It is further made clear that in the event, if charge-
sheet is filed connecting the petitioner with the offence, in that
event, the present anticipatory bail order shall loose its effect.
9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the
Superintendent of Police, East Champaran at Motihari for his
perusal.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
khushbu/-
U T
Checking your session…