Dismissed¶30

Pankaj Kumar Yadav @ Netaji @ Pankaj Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC2 Jul 2025CR. MISC./11345/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail rejected; Section 420 IPC cheating; promise to procure seat of teacher; alleged payments Rs. 24,000 (16.08.2007), Rs. 35,100 (16.08.2008), Rs. 90,000 (15.11.2011); panchayati failed; cognizance 2022; three-year delay in approaching Court; unsigned document kept on record; advice to lodge civil/criminal case if signature disputed; Saharsa Complaint Case No. 905C of 2019; PS Case No. 905 of 2019; Patna High Court CRL.MISC. No. 11345 of 2025; Rajiv Roy, J.

What did the court decide?

Since, on the petitioner's own submission, cognizance was taken in 2022 and he took three years to come before this Court, it would be appropriate that he seek (regular) bail rather than anticipatory bail. ¶29

Pankaj Kumar Yadav @ Netaji @ Pankaj Yadav Vs The State… — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who apprehends arrest in connection with Saharsa Complaint Case No. 905C of 2019 (offence under Section 420 IPC), should be granted anticipatory bail.

¶15

Court's answer

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The anticipatory bail application stands rejected.

¶30

Key takeaways

The document provided by the informant's counsel is kept on record; if the petitioner disputes his signature, he is well advised to lodge an appropriate civil/criminal case against the complainant.obiter¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Rajiv Roy, J.) rejected the anticipatory bail application of Pankaj Kumar Yadav @ Netaji @ Pankaj Yadav in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 11345 of 2025, arising out of PS Case No. 905 of 2019 / Saharsa Complaint Case No. 905C of 2019 under Section 420 IPC, lodged by complainant Rajdev (Rajdeo) Prasad Yadav. Per the prosecution story, the complainant, a tuition teacher, paid the petitioner Rs. 24,000 (16.08.2007), Rs. 35,100 (16.08.2008) and Rs. 90,000 (15.11.2011) on the promise of procuring a seat of teacher; the petitioner thereafter kept assuring him, evaded him, and a panchayati proved futile. Petitioner's counsel urged that the complaint was filed long after 2011, casting doubt on bonafides, that the petitioner had no criminal antecedent, was named due to village politics, and that there was no documentary evidence; cognizance was taken in 2022. The informant's counsel (Mr. Amarnath Jha) produced a document between the parties, not disputed by the petitioner, which bears no signature of the petitioner; it was kept on record, with the advice that if the petitioner disputes the signature he may lodge an appropriate civil/criminal case against the complainant. Holding that the petitioner had taken three years after cognizance to approach the Court, the Court found it appropriate that he seek regular bail and rejected the anticipatory bail application.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11345 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-905 Year-2019 Thana- SAHARSA COMPLAINT CASE District- Saharsa

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Pankaj Kumar Yadav @ Netaji @ Pankaj Yadav son of Shiv Narayan Yadav @ Shivnarayan Prasad Yadav village- Ghoghapatti, Ps- sour Bazar, DistSaharsa

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Rajdeo Prasad Yadav Son of Late Anandi Yadav village- Gordah, PsSalkhua, Dist- Saharsa

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satish Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER

¶12

3 02-07-2025

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶14

counsel representing the informant as also learned APP representing the State.

¶15

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Saharsa Complaint Case No. 905C of 2019 for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, lodged by the complainant Rajdev Prasad Yadav.

¶16

As per the prosecution story, the complainant alleged that he being an educated person used to take tution in the village for his livelihood, the petitioner approached him and asked him to pay some amount so that he can procure a seat of teacher for him. Allegation is that accepting his words, the

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11345 of 2025(3) dt.02-07-2025 2/3

¶18

payments were made as follows:

¶19

(i) on 16.08.2007, Rs. 24,000/-;

¶20

(ii) on 16.08.2008, Rs. 35,100/-;

¶21

(iii) on 15.11.2011, Rs.90,000/-.

¶22

However, thereafter the petitioner kept on assuring

¶23

him but when he starting evading the complainant, was confronted, a panchayati took place, but he chose to look the other way which led to the present case.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a bare perusal of the date would show that after the year 2011, he took time in filing the complaint which puts a question mark on his bonafide. Further submission is that he has no criminal antecedent, his name has been brought on record due to village politics and no documentary evidence on record.

¶25

To a query why he has approached the Court in the year 2025, the submission is that the cognizance took place in the year 2022.

¶26

Mr. Amarnath Jha learned counsel representing the informant and he has provided a document between the parties not disputed by the petitioner that it has not been signed by Pankaj Kumar Yadav (the petitioner herein). It shows the bonafide of the allegation made in the complaint petition.

¶27

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11345 of 2025(3) dt.02-07-2025 3/3

¶28

Let the said document provided by Mr. Amarnath Jha be kept on record. Further, if the petitioner disputes his signature, he is well advised to lodge appropriate case civil/criminal case against the complainant.

¶29

As per the own submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the cognizance took place in the year 2022, he took time of three years in coming before this Court, in that background, it would be appropriate that he seek bail.

¶30

The anticipatory bail application stands rejected.

¶31

(Rajiv Roy, J)

¶32

vinayak/-

¶33

U T

Pankaj Kumar Yadav @ Netaji @ Pankaj Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Kumar Yadav @ Netaji @ Pankaj Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Naresh Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Govind Prasad Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ranjit Kumar Singh and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Rajiv Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Reyaz Ahmed @ Md. Riyaj Vs The State of Bihar

Rajesh Kumar Ray Vs The State of Bihar