Patna High Court
Raju Uranw @ Raju UraonversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The Court granted bail to the petitioners subject to strict conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Summary
The petitioners, five members of the Uranw family, sought bail fearing arrest in a land‑dispute case (P.S. Case No.314 of 2025) involving alleged extortion, theft, and threats under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. They claimed to be innocent, asserting a title suit that had awarded them possession of the land for over 50 years, and alleged that the FIR was filed to pressure them. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences. The informant’s counsel did not dispute the title‑suit outcome but urged peace between the parties. The Court, noting the parties’ agreement to refrain from taking the law into their own hands, granted bail subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, including a bond, sureties, and directives to maintain peace and not tamper with evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioners despite the grave nature of the charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether the existence of a title suit and long‑standing possession affect the criminal proceedings.
- Whether imposing conditions under Section 482(2) is appropriate to ensure peace and prevent interference with the trial.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 115(2), 126(2), 127(2), 303(2), 308(2), 324(4), 329(3), 329(4), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 482(2)
Subjects
- bail
- land dispute
- extortion
- criminal procedure
- Section 482
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- peace and harmony
- title suit
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6413 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-314 Year-2025 Thana- KHAJANCHI HAT District- Purnia
======================================================
1. Raju Uranw @ Raju Uraon S/O Munna Uranw R/o Village.- Rambag Drive,
Tolayag, Shahar, P.s.- Sadar Purnea, Dist.- Purnea
2. Geeta Devi W/O Mahesh Uranw R/o Village.- Rambag Drive, Tolayag,
Shahar, P.s.- Sadar Purnea, Dist.- Purnea
3. Birendra Uranw @ Dharmendra Uraon @ Birendra Uraon S/O Jagdeo
Uranw R/o Village.- Rambag Drive, Tolayag, Shahar, P.s.- Sadar Purnea,
Dist.- Purnea
4. Rukmani Devi W/O Subol Uraon R/o Village.- Rambag Drive, Tolayag,
Shahar, P.s.- Sadar Purnea, Dist.- Purnea
5. Subol Uraon @ Suvol Uraown S/O Late Sukhlal Urawn R/o Village.-
Rambag Drive, Tolayag, Shahar, P.s.- Sadar Purnea, Dist.- Purnea
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey
Mr. Ram Pravesh Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 24-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with K.Hat P.S. Case No.314 of 2025, dated
30.07.2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections
126(2), 115(2), 127(2), 329(3), 329(4), 303(2), 324(4), 308(2),
352, 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. As per the FIR, on account of a land dispute, the
accused persons, along with 8–9 unknown individuals,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6413 of 2026(3) dt.24-02-2026
2/4
demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- as extortion money for allowing
construction. They allegedly broke the fence and gate,
committed theft, caused damage worth about Rs. 50,000/-, and
threatened to kill the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in
this case. He further submits that both sides are agnates and that
the petitioners have been in peaceful possession of the land for
more than 50 years. Certain disputes are said to have been raised
by the informant and his family members, with respect to which
a title suit was decreed in favour of the grandfather of the
petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that, in order to
oppose possession over the same, the present case has been
registered by the informant, as the petitioners objected to their
attempt to fence the land in question. According to the
petitioners, the instant case has been instituted to create pressure
upon them. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioners have no
criminal antecedents, except petitioner no. 5, who has one
criminal antecedent.
5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State
has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.
6. Learned counsel for the informant has appeared
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6413 of 2026(3) dt.24-02-2026
3/4
and does not dispute the factual position insofar as the issues
settled in the title suit are concerned, but prays that the
petitioners be directed to maintain peace and harmony with the
informant and his family members.
7. In response, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the petitioners shall not disturb the informant or his
family members and that a similar approach may be directed to
be maintained by the informant. It is further submitted that the
petitioners shall avail themselves of the remedies available
under the law to secure possession of the land in question, in
respect of which a decree has been passed in their favour.
8. Taking into account that the parties have agreed
not to take the law into their own hands, let the above named
petitioners, be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or
surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six
weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Purnea/Successor Court in connection with K. Hat
P.S. Case No.314 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 482(2) of the BNSS as well as the following
conditions:
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6413 of 2026(3) dt.24-02-2026
4/4
(i) The petitioners shall maintain peace and
harmony and shall not involve themselves in any act that may
disturb law and order or give rise to any further dispute between
the parties.
(ii) One of the bailors should be the family
member/relative/ known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide
official document/ personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every
date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two
consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail
cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce
or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(v) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing
any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at
liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
shikha/-
U T
Checking your session…