IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21728 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-352 Year-2025 Thana- PIPRAKOTHI District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1. Raj Kumar @ Raj Kumar Ram Son of Late Jatan Ram Resident of village -Mathurapur PS- Turkauliya District -East champaran 2. Umesh Kumar yadav Son of Gobari Rai @ Govari Rai Resident of village -Mathurapur PS- Turkauliya District -East champaran 3. Ram Pravesh yadav @ Ram Pravesh Prasad Yadav Son of Yodolal Rai Resident of village -Mathurapur PS- Turkauliya District -East champaran 4. Yogendra Rai Son of Sitaram Rai Resident of village -Mathurapur PS- Turkauliya District -East champaran ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shanti Bhushan Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Murli Dhar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 2 08-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending arrest in connection with Piprakothi P.S. Case No. 352 of 2025 lodged on 13.10.2025, for the offence punishable under Section 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against six named accused persons including the present petitioners. The allegation in the FIR is that the informant is the purchaser Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21728 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026 2/3 of a particular piece of land in the year 2020 and the petitioners have purchased the same land from other persons. When the informant received information that his land was purchased by the accused persons, then he has filed a criminal case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence. Counsel submits that from the content of the FIR, it is clear that the informant has categorically stated that he has purchased the land in the year 2020, but mutation of the said land has been rejected, which is annexed as Annexure-3 of the present application. Counsel submits that the said land actually belongs to another person from whom the petitioners have purchased vide registered sale deed which is annexed as Annexure-2 of the present application. Counsel submits that the rejection has been made in the year 2020-21 and latest registry is of the petitioner nos.1, 2 & 3. Petitioner no.4 is the identifier only. Counsel further submits that the petitioner no.1 has clean antecedent, whereas, petitioner nos.2, 3 & 4 have one criminal antecedent each. 5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioners but fairly submits that it is a title dispute between the two purchasers. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21728 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026 3/3 6. As such, in the present facts and circumstances of this case, let the above named petitioners be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the Trial Court within a period of 4 weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) each as mentioned in Section 2(1)(d) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 to the satisfaction of J.M. 1st Class, East Champaran, Motihari, in connection with Piprakothi P.S. Case No. 352 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down U/s 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023. Divyansh/- (Dr. Anshuman, J) U T