Patna High Court – Orders
Virendra Kumar @ Virendra Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 2 July, 2025
Author: Rajesh Kumar Verma
Bench: Rajesh Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17427 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-353 Year-2017 Thana- TEKARI District- Gaya
======================================================
1. Virendra Kumar @ Virendra Yadav Son of Late Musafir Yadav Resident of
Village - Kesho Bigha, P.S. - Tekari, District - Gaya
2. Nagendra Kumar @ Dara Son of Late Musafir Yadav Resident of Village -
Kesho Bigha, P.S. - Tekari, District - Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rajendra Yadav S/o Bhuneshwar Yadav R/o Village- Keso Bigha, P.S.-
Tekari, District-Gaya,
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Aryan Singh, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anil Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 02-07-2025
Heard Mr. Aryan Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the
Informant and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Tekari P.S. Case No. 353 of 2017, F.I.R. dated
04.09.2017 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 384, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 341, 323,
379, 504, 506, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Allegation against the petitioners is that when the
informant was sitting with his family members, accused persons
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17427 of 2025(4) dt.02-07-2025
2/4
came and gave threat that the informant has to withdraw the
case and made a demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five lacs) by way of
ransom and on refusal the informant was assaulted.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners have clean antecedents and they have been falsely
implicated in the present case. He further submits that the
allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the
petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged in the
F.I.R and from perusal of the F.I.R., the allegation against the
petitioners are that they have impersonated one Rampari Devi
and executed a sale deed. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that from perusal of the F.I.R./complaint petition
it is not clear how the informant is affected from the aforesaid
transaction and apart from that the informant is not in a position
to produce the sale deed which was executed by the so-called
Rampari Devi in the year 2017 and even he has not mentioned
in the F.I.R./complaint petition that on which date the said sale
deed was executed only bald statement in the complaint petition.
5. Learned counsel for the Informant as well as
learned APP for the State, on the other hand, on the basis of
material available on record and the case diary has opposed the
prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that it
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17427 of 2025(4) dt.02-07-2025
3/4
has come during investigation that the petitioners were involved
in the present crime in question but fairly submits that the
prosecution has also not obtained the sale deed which was the
subject matter of the present case.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their 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/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)
each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in connection with
Tekari P.S. Case No. 353 of 2017, subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure/ Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 and with other
following conditions :-
(1) Petitioners 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 their absence on two consecutive dates without
sufficient reason, their bail bonds shall be cancelled by the
Court below.
(2) If the petitioners tamper with the evidence or the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17427 of 2025(4) dt.02-07-2025
4/4witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
(3) And, further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at
any stage, it is found that the petitioners have concealed their
criminal antecedents, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. 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)
Ibrar//-
U T