SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 4560

PATNA HIGH COURT
RAJESH KUMAR VERMA, J
Bhuttu Ram @ Bhulai Ram – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77856 of 2025 | PS. Case No.-23 Year-2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Mukesh Kumar Rana
For the Respondents: Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP, Md. Mumtaz Uddin

The court established principles guiding bail grant, prioritizing trial cooperation and verification of antecedents.

Headnote:The petitioner seeks bail under sections 420, 406, 120B IPC, alleging wrongful detention since 06.08.2025. The informant claims the petitioner took Rs. 12,14,000 for land registry but did not fulfill the obligation. The court, considering the facts, grants bail under strict conditions, ensuring cooperation in the trial and verification of criminal antecedents. The final order states a demand draft of Rs. 2,64,000 be submitted to the informant and lays down conditions for bail validation.

Table of Content
1. court's initial observations regarding the hearing. (Para 2)
2. allegations and defense regarding bail request. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. conditions for bail granted to the petitioner. (Para 7)

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Rana, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP For the Informant : Md. Mumtaz Uddin, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER

4 22-01-2026 Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner, Md. Mumtaz Uddin, learned counsel for the Informant as well as Mr. Umeshanand Pandit,learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since

06.08.2025 in connection with Bardaha P.S. Case No. 23 of 2024, F.I.R. dated 23.03.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 , 406, 120B of the Indian Penal Code .

3. According to prosecution case, the informant alleged that the petitioner along with other co-accused person took Rs.12,14,000/- from him for registry of land but did not do the same.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the petitioner had taken money in tune of Rs. 2,64,000/- only from the informant and he is ready to pay the same and rest amount to be paid after the final outcome of the present case.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner carries one criminal antecedent. 6. Learned counsel for the Informant submits that the petitioner had taken Rs. 12,14,000/- from the informant but on instruction, ready to accept Rs. 2,64,000/- from the petitioner.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, 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-I Class, Araria in connection with Bardaha P.S. Case No. 23 of 2024, subject to the following conditions:-

i. At the time of furnishing bail bond, the petitioner shall produce a demand draft of Rs. 2,64,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Sixty Four Thousand) in favour of the informant and learned court below is directed to handover the said demand draft to the informant or his representative.

ii. 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.

iii. 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.

iv. 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)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top