Patna High Court
Ramchandra Yadav @ Ramchandra Prasad YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Summary
Ramchandra Yadav was named in an FIR alleging that he received Rs.12.5 lakh for purchasing a plot of land but failed to transfer the land or return the money. He contended that the allegations were fabricated, he had a clean antecedent, and no specific charge against him was detailed in the FIR. The prosecution opposed his request for anticipatory bail. The court noted the petitioner’s clean record, the lack of specific allegations, and that a similarly situated co‑accused had already been granted anticipatory bail. Relying on Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the court ordered that the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bond and complying with several conditions. The bail is to be verified by the lower court and may be cancelled if conditions are breached.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the FIR alleging offences under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and lack of specific allegations justify bail
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 316(2), 318(4)
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- land fraud
- false implication
- clean antecedent
- Section 438
- Section 482
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91261 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-486 Year-2024 Thana- RAJAOLI District- Nawada
======================================================
Ramchandra Yadav @ Ramchandra Prasad Yadav Son of Late Karu Yadav
Resident of Village- Murhena, P.S.- Rajauli, District -Nawada
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Deo Raj, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Nirmala Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 17-02-2026 Heard Mr. Krishna Deo Raj, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Ms. Nirmala Kumari, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection
with Rajauli P.S. Case No. 486 of 2024, F.I.R. dated 09.10.2024
for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of
the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.
3. As per the First Information Report, the informant
alleged that he paid Rs.12,50,000/- to the petitioner and other co-
accused persons for purchasing of land bearing khata no.314 plot
no.2428 area 13 decimal but the accused persons did not transfer
the said land nor returned the money and sold the said land to
somebody else.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91261 of 2025(2) dt.17-02-2026
2/3
in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as
alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has
not committed any offences as alleged in the F.I.R. Although the
petitioner is named in the FIR but from bare perusal of the FIR it
appears that there is no specific allegation against him rather the
allegation against him is general and omnibus in nature that he
along with other co-accused persons took money from the
informant for purchase of land but rgistered the same in favour of
the informant. It is next submitted that similarly situated co-
accused person, namely, Sangita Devi has been granted the
privilege of anticipatory bail vide order dated 22.01.2025 in A.B.P.
No. 3133 of 2024 by the learned Court below itself.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
and the fact that the petitioner has clean antecedent and there is no
specific allegation against him and similarly situated co-accused
person has been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by the
learned Court below itself, let the petitioner, above named, in the
event of arrest or surrender before the court below within a period
of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on
bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91261 of 2025(2) dt.17-02-2026
3/3
learned A.C.J.M.-I, Nawada in connection with Rajauli P.S. Case
No. 486 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2)
of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following
conditions:-
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any
stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal
antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail
bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bond in
terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for
purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
U T
Checking your session…