Patna High Court – Orders
Raghuveer Prasad Yadav @ Raghubir … vs The State Of Bihar on 19 May, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34282 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-247 Year-2013 Thana- EAST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT
District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. Raghuveer Prasad Yadav @ Raghubir Prasad @ Raghubir Rai S/o Mangani
Rai R/o Village - Bagaha, P.S. - Ghorahasan, Dist. - East Champaran.
2. Mukesh Rai @ Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh Kumar Yadav S/o Raghuveer
Prasad Yadav @ Raghubir Rai @ Raghubir Prasad R/o Village - Bagaha,
P.S. - Ghorahasan, Dist. - East Champaran.
3. Akhilesh Rai @ Aklesh Prasad Yadav S/o Raghuveer Prasad Yadav @
Raghubir Rai @ Raghubir Prasad R/o Village - Bagaha, P.S. - Ghorahasan,
Dist. - East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Vidya Devi W/o Ramvilas Singh R/o Village - Bagaha, P.S. - Ghorahasan,
Dist. - East Champaran.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Suraj Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 19-05-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Complaint Case No. 247 of 2013 registered for the
offences punishable under sections 406, 323, 427, 354, 379 and
504 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the complaint case which has been lodged
on the basis of the complaint made by the complainant to the
effect that the petitioners have executed the sale deed of the land
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34282 of 2026(2) dt.19-05-2026
2/2
of the complainant bearing Khata No. 70, Khesra No. 2998 area
measuring 51/2 dhurs by creating forged deed in their name
through co-accused Phuljhari Devi. When they tried to take
possession of the said land, the complainant protested upon
which they abused and assaulted her and her son. The accused
persons also snatched her gold ornaments worth Rs. 8,000/-.
4. At the outset, the learned A.P.P. for the State
submits that the process under section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. have
been issued. Upon which the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that process under Section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. have been
issued, on the same date, without awaiting for any service report
with regard to issuance of summons, warrants and the
petitioners were not aware about the pendency of the present
case.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and after going through the records, it appears that process
under section 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. have been issued against
the petitioner on 13.01.2026, therefore, I am not inclined to
grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the same is
rejected.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
vinita/-
U T
