Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16357 (PAT)

Bangali Rai v. The State of Bihar

CR. MISC./31095/2026 · 2026-05-07

Sunil Dutta Mishra

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31095 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-11115 Year-2024 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District- Patna ====================================================== 1. Bangali Rai Son of Late Shiv Kumar Resident of Village - Simari Nawada, P.S.- Bihta, District - Patna. 2. Sanjeet Kumar Son of Bangali Rai Resident of Village - Simari Nawada, P.S.- Bihta, District - Patna. 3. Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Rai Son of Bangali Rai Resident of Village - Simari Nawada, P.S.- Bihta, District - Patna. 4. Arvind Rai @ Arvind Kumar Son of Bangali Rai Resident of Village - Simari Nawada, P.S.- Bihta, District - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dineshwar Mishra, Advocate Ms. Ruchi Arya, Advocate Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 2 07-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.11115(C) of 2024 registered under Sections 318(2) and 336(2) of B.N.S. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that they entered into an agreement with the complainant for sale of a piece of land for a total consideration amount of Rs.18 lakhs and thereafter Rs.4,80,000/- was enhanced by the accused persons. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31095 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026 2/2 On pressure, the complainant paid total Rs.22,80,000/- to the accused persons but they did not execute sale deed in favour of the complainant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under bailable sections, therefore, this case may be disposed of. 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that in offences which are bailable, the anticipatory bail is not maintainable. 6. In view of the aforesaid submissions on behalf of the parties, the present application stands disposed of. Harish/- (Sunil Dutta Mishra, J) U T