Raja @ Ranjit Patel Vs The State of Bihar — Anticipatory Bail | Patna HC (2026)

Raja @ Ranjit Patel Vs The State of Bihar — Anticipatory Bail | Patna HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail: petitioner to be released on bail on arrest or surrender within six weeks of receipt of the order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah, in connection with Bettiah Mufassil P.S. Case No. 1078 of 2022; subject to Section 482(2) of the BNSS conditions and the four additional conditions enumerated in the order (bona fide family-member/relative bailor with official document; appearance on every trial date with cancellation after two consecutive unexplained absences; no inducement/threat to witnesses or tampering with evidence; desistance from further offences).

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Bettiah Mufassil P.S. Case No. 1078 of 2022 (S. 379 IPC — alleged theft of the informant's motorcycle), is entitled to anticipatory bail.

Court's answer

Anticipatory bail granted: taking into account the nature of the allegation, that two FIRs had been registered for the same occurrence, and that no recovery of any incriminating materials was made from the petitioner's constructive possession or house, the Court extended to the petitioner the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Ratio / Principle

Operative directions: petitioner to be released on bail on arrest or surrender within six weeks of receipt of the order, on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah, in connection with the said PS Case; subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS and four further conditions — (i) one bailor to be a bona fide family member/relative producing official documentation; (ii) appearance on each and every trial date, failure on two consecutive dates without plausible reason entailing cancellation of the bail bond by the Trial Court itself; (iii) no inducement, promise or threat to witnesses and no tampering with evidence, failing which the State is at liberty to seek cancellation of the bail bonds; (iv) desistence from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State is at liberty to seek cancellation of the bail bonds.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ANTICIPATORY BAIL — GRANTED (THEFT, S. 379 IPC). Petitioner, alleged to have been instrumental in the theft of the informant's motorcycle (Regn. No. BR-22AG 6310) parked at Pipra Chowk (Bettiah Mufassil P.S. Case No. 1078 of 2022, lodged 19.12.2022), sought pre-arrest bail. Points urged for him: (a) the informant had lodged two FIRs for the same occurrence — the second, P.S. Case No. 1094 of 2022 (dated 26.12.2022), against unknown persons; (b) no recovery of any incriminating material was made from the petitioner's constructive possession or house; (c) the FIRs were allegedly lodged with ulterior motive to settle a money dispute over wedding confectionery (sweets worth Rs. 12,000/- prepared; Rs. 4000/- paid online; Rs. 8000/- outstanding); and (d) he had one antecedent, in which he is on bail. Weighing the nature of the allegation, the duplication of FIRs for the same occurrence and the absence of any recovery, the Court extended the privilege of anticipatory bail — release on arrest or surrender within six weeks on a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Champaran (Bettiah), subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS and four added conditions: one bailor a bona fide family member/relative with official documentary proof of bona fides; presence on each and every trial date, failure on two consecutive dates without plausible reason entailing cancellation of the bail bond by the Trial Court itself; abstention from inducing, promising or threatening witnesses or tampering with evidence, failing which the State may move for cancellation; and desistance from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State may likewise move for cancellation.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23733 of 2026

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1078 Year-2022 Thana- MUFFASIL District- West Champaran

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

Raja @ Ranjit Patel S/o Ram Raj Patel @ Ramraj Prasad Resident of VillageTikulia Bhaza Tola, Ward No 12, Police Station- Paharpur, District- East Champaran

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shakil Ahmad Khan, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Murli Dhar, APP ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER

2 16-04-2026

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

APP for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Bettiah Mufassil P.S. Case No. 1078 of 2022 for the offence punishable under sections 379 of IPC lodged on 19.12.2022 by the informant.

As per the prosecution case, the motorcycle bearing Registration No. BR-22AG 6310 of the informant was stolen which was parked in front of the house of one Naimuddin Quraishi at Pipra Chowk, for which this petitioner is alleged to be instrumental. Accordingly, the FIR.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on allegation of theft of motorcycle being registration no. BR22AG 6310, two First Information Reports have been lodged by

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23733 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026 2/3

the informant. In the present FIR, the petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail while the second FIR being Bettiah Mufassil PS Case No.1094 of 2022 dated 26.12.2022 has been lodged against unknown. It has next been submitted that no recovery of any incriminating materials has been made from the constructive possession of the petitioner or from his house and he has got no connection with the theft of any motorcycle as alleged. It is the case of the petitioner that he being the confectioner prepared sweets of Rs. 12,000/- for the wedding of the informant’s daughter and when he demanded his money, he was paid only Rs. 4000/- through online mode and the informant further refused to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 8000/-. Hence, with an ulterior motive and in order to settle the money dispute the FIRs have been lodged. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the petitioner has got one antecedent in which he is on bail

Learned APP opposes the prayer for anticipatory

bail.

Considering the nature of allegation and two FIRs have been registered for the same occurrence, no recovery of any incriminating materials has been made from the constructive possession of the petitioner or from his house, this Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23733 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026 3/3

Let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

West Champaran, Bettiah in connection with aforesaid PS Case, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS as well as the following conditions:-

(i) one of the bailors should be the family member/relative of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;

(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;

(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;

(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his/their bail bonds.

(Ajit Kumar, J)

perwez

U