Chandeshwar Rai vs The State Of Bihar on 9 July, 2025

Patna High Court – Orders

Chandeshwar Rai vs The State Of Bihar on 9 July, 2025

Author: Rajesh Kumar Verma

Bench: Rajesh Kumar Verma

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29311 of 2025
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-90 Year-2024 Thana- RAMPUR HARI District- Muzaffarpur
                 ======================================================
                 Chandeshwar Rai Son of Late Nathuni Rai Resident of Village - Dharampur,
                 P.S.- Rampurhari (Minapur), District - Muzaffarpur.

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Mina Devi W/O Nawal Kishore Rai, R/O - Maksudpur, P.S. Minapur,
                 Disctrict - Muzaffarpur

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Amitesh Kumar, APP
                 For the complainant      :      Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   09-07-2025

Heard Mr. Ravi Ranjan, learned counsel for the

petitioner, Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the

Complainant as well as Mr. Amitesh Kumar, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in

connection with Rampur Hari P.S. Case No. 90 of 2024, F.I.R.

dated 03.05.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections

420, 406, 424, 115, 120(B), 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. According to prosecution case, this petitioner along

with other accused persons have fraudulently executed the sale

deed and transferred the land of the complainant’s mother in

their name.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29311 of 2025(3) dt.09-07-2025
2/4

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been

implicated in the present case. From perusal of the

F.I.R/complaint petition, it appears that there is no specific

allegation against in the complaint petition which was registered

in the present F.I.R. It appears from the complaint petition that

the land in question was registered on 12.06.2023 and the

mother of the informant/complainant died on 25.09.2023 and

the present complaint petition has been filed after the death of

the mother of the informant/complainant. The complaint petition

was forwarded to S.S.P. Muzaffarpur for registering the F.I.R

vide order dated 16.12.2023. Apart from that the complainant

suspects that the petitioner and other accused persons have

ousted her mother from the house on 27.07.2023. He further

submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and

fabricated and in fact, the mother of the complainant, namely,

Krishna Devi was present in the office of Sub-Registrar,

Muzaffarpur and excuted the sale deed no. 21436 dated

27.07.2023 in favour of Musmat Jagati Devi which suggest that

the petitioner and other accused persons have not ousted the

mother of the complainant. He further submits that the similarly

situated co-accused, namely, Sakindra Roy @ Satendra Kumar
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29311 of 2025(3) dt.09-07-2025
3/4

& Ors. have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide

order dated 14.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 9046 of 2025.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

complainant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor

have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

that the petitioner has clean antecedent and the similarly situated

co-accused persons have been granted bail by this Court, 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 learned Judicial

Magistrate 1st Class, Muzaffarpur in connection with Rampur

Hari P.S. Case No. 90 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29311 of 2025(3) dt.09-07-2025
4/4

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 bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order

shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of

verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-

U      T