Patna High Court
Rahul Kumar Yadav @ Rahul KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438(2) of the CrPC.
Summary
The petitioner, Rahul Kumar Yadav, was implicated in a complaint alleging cheating under Sections 420 and 504 of the IPC and a cheque bounce under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, stemming from a claim that he accepted Rs.2.90 lakh from the complainant for a promised job and issued two bounced cheques of Rs.40,000 each. The petitioner contended he has a clean record and argued that the complainant herself is complicit, having paid the money to secure a job through illicit means. The complainant’s spouse, Smita Kumari, did not oppose the anticipatory bail application. After hearing both sides, the court granted anticipatory bail, directing the petitioner to furnish a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties of the same amount, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC. The order ensures the petitioner’s release if arrested within six weeks, pending trial in the original complaint case.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) of the CrPC in a case involving alleged cheating and cheque bounce.
- Whether the allegations against the petitioner constitute sufficient ground to deny anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 420, 504
- Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 138
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- cheating
- IPC 420
- IPC 504
- cheque bounce
- NI Act 138
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71148 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-562 Year-2017 Thana- EAST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT
District- East Champaran
======================================================
Rahul Kumar Yadav @ Rahul Kumar Son of Rai Yadav @ Shree Ray
Resident of village - Chilrawa, P.S.- Turkauliya, District - East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Smita Kumari Wife of Sri Ajay Kumar Kushwaha Resident of village -
Chandi Sthan, P.S.- Govindganj, District - East Champaran.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 15-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the O.P. No.2.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 504
of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of N.I. Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the complainant
alleges that she had applied for the post of Data Operator in
P.H.E.D., Patna and had mentioned her mobile number on the
application form, the petitioner made a call on her mobile
number and assured her of the job in August, 2016 and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71148 of 2025(3) dt.15-04-2026
2/3
introduced her and her husband to Meena Kumari, who
demanded Rs.3, 00,000/-, the complainant accordingly gave
Rs.2,90,000/- to the petitioner but she did not get the job,
thereafter complainant demanded her money back when two
cheques of Rs.40,000/- were issued to the complainant, which
on presentation for encashment bounced.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
complainant. It is next submitted that if what has been alleged in
the complaint is a true fact, in that event, the complainant
equally is involved in committing an offence as she alleges that
she paid an amount of Rs. 2,90,000/- to the petitioner for
obtaining appointment through back door. It is next submitted
that if petitioner is sent to judicial custody the same would
amount to sending an accused to jail for not being able to
perform an illegality.
5. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the O.P. No.2 submits that O.P. No.2 presently is not
opposing the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender
within a period of six weeks from today, be released on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71148 of 2025(3) dt.15-04-2026
3/3
anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten 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 Complaint Case
No.C-562 of 2017, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…