IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61674 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-40 Year-2025 Thana- Sonki District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Mani Raj Son of Raj Kumar Mahaseth R/o Village - Ratnopatti, P. S. - Nagar Darbhanga, Dist. - Darbhanga. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Ram Pukar Sahu @ Ram Pukar Sah Son of Late Thakko Sahu R/o Village - Rasalpur Sahila, P.S. - Sonki, Dist. - Darbhanga. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uma Shankar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, APP For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 5 23-04-2026 Heard, Mr. Uma Shankar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State 2. The present case has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the Opposite Party No. 2 in connection with Sonki P.S. Case No. 40/2025 dated 12.03.2025, registered under Section 318(4), 308(3), 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. vide Cr. Misc. No. 47449 of 2025 passed by this Hon’ble court. 3. As per the FIR, the petitioner alleged that the Opposite Party No. 2 along with other accused persons took money from him in lieu of registration of sale deed of land but did not do so. When the petitioner demanded the money back, Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61674 of 2025(5) dt.23-04-2026 2/2 the accused persons did not return the money instead demanded Rs. 10 lakhs as rangdari. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the O.P. No. 2 has wrongly submitted before this Court that O.P. No. 2 is only witness to the agreement and he has not received any amount from the informant who is the petitioner in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the O.P. No. 2 was also a party of the agreement dated 05.08.2024 as Executant No. 3. and he has received has Rs. 2,50,000/- ( Two lakhs Fifty Thousand) from the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the the O.P. No. 2 has produced two demand drafts dated 11.03.2026 and 18.02.2026 bearing No. “200966” and “567633” respectively in tune of Rs. 1,25,000/- (One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand) each in favour of the petitioner, namely Mani Raj. The two demand drafts as mentioned aforesaid is handed over to the counsel for the petitioner. 6. Considering the aforesaid fact, no order needs to be passed in the present case. 7. This application is disposed of. atul/- (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) U T