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 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 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