Patna High Court
CR. MISC./59133/2026 of Ramchandra Sah @ Shiv Bhagat Vs The State of Bihar on 19 August 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59133 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-78 Year-2026 Thana- HARSIDHI District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1. Ramchandra Sah @ Shiv Bhagat S/O Aniruddha Sah R/V- Mishra Tola, Olahan, PS- Harsidhi,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59133 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-78 Year-2026 Thana- HARSIDHI District- East Champaran ======================================================
1.
Ramchandra Sah @ Shiv Bhagat S/O Aniruddha Sah R/V- Mishra Tola, Olahan, PS- Harsidhi, District- East Champaran
2.
Munni Devi W/O Ramchandra Sah @ Shiv Bhagat R/V- Mishra Tola, Olahan, PS- Harsidhi, District- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s
:Mr.Kundan Rathore Alias Kundan Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :Mr.Abhay Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
19-08-2026 Heard Mr.Kundan Rathore Alias Kundan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Abhay Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Harsidhi P.S.Case No.78 of 2026, FIR dated 06.02.2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4),316(2) of BNS, 2023.
3. Allegation against the petitioners is that they defrauded the informant by creating forged documents. Throughout the process of transaction the petitioners have committed fraud from the complainant and received huge amount of money on the basis of fraud.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have clean antecedent and they have falsely been implicated in the present case merely on the ground that the petitioners are relative of co-accused person, namely, Pratima Devi. From a bare perusal of the agreement which was executed by the co-accused person, namely, Pratima Devi with the informant only allegation that the deal was settled in front of the petitioners and there is no allegation against the petitioners that they have received any amount from the informant and even they are not the part and parcel of the agreement in question.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, petitioners have clean antecedent, they have not received any amount from the informant and they have been made accused in the present case merely on the ground that they are family members of co-accused person, namely, Pratima Devi, 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 (Ten Thousand)each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, East Champaran, Motihari/concerned court in connection with Harsidhi P.S.Case No.78 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and with other following conditions:- (I) 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. (II) If the petitioners tamper 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 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.
Nitesh/- (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) U T