Bharat Sah Vs The State of Bihar — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2025)

Bharat Sah Vs The State of Bihar — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail granted to all three petitioners: on arrest or surrender within eight weeks, enlargement on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the Sub-Division Judicial Magistrate Sikrahana at Dhaka, East Champaran, in connection with Complaint Case No. 307 of 2023, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, who apprehend arrest in Complaint Case No. 307 of 2023 registered for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 IPC, should be enlarged on bail in the event of arrest or surrender.

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances, the court ordered that, in the event of arrest or surrender within eight weeks, the petitioners be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the Sub-Division Judicial Magistrate Sikrahana at Dhaka, District East Champaran, in connection with Complaint Case No. 307 of 2023, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) CrPC.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail — Patna High Court (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J.) granted bail to three petitioners apprehending arrest in Complaint Case No. 307 of 2023 (Sikrahana PS, East Champaran) registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 IPC. Prosecution case: widow-complainant Sumitra Devi alleges that on 30.12.2021, while she was ill, her daughter, son-in-law and co-accused fraudulently executed a sale deed of her land. Petitioners submitted that petitioner No. 1 was implicated as father of co-accused Rakesh Kumar, petitioner No. 2 was mere identifier and petitioner No. 3 the deed writer, and none were beneficiaries of the sale deed. On arrest or surrender within eight weeks, petitioners were to be enlarged on bail on a Rs. 10,000/- bond each with two like sureties, subject to Section 438(2) CrPC conditions.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24576 of 2025

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-307 Year-2023 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE - SIKRAHANA District- East Champaran

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

1 . Bharat Sah son of Late Badri Sah Resident of Village - Mirpur, Police Station - Chiraiya, District - East Champaran

Hirdyalal Sah @ Hidryal Sah Son of Late Biltu Sah Village- Mirpur PsChiraiya, Dist- East Champaran

3 . Suman Kumar (Katib) @ Suman Kumar son of Late Ravindra Prasad village- Ruphara, ps- Sikarganj, Dist- East Champaran At P/A- At Katib Registry Office, Dhaka, East Champaran

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1 . The State of Bihar

Sumitra Devi wife of Late Bigan Sah village- Mirpur, Ps- Chiraiya, DistEast Champaran

... ... Opposite Party/s

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar , Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Mushtaque Alam APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH

ORAL ORDER

3 29-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the

State .

Petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468 , 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code .

3 . As per the prosecution case , complainant namely , Sumitra Devi who was a widow lady has two daughters and on 30.12.2021 when she became ill, then her daughter namely Puja Kumari, son-in -law Rakesh Kumar and this petitioner namely,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24576 of 2025(3) dt.29-07-2025 2/3

Bharat Sah in connivance with other co-accused persons fraudulently got executed the land of complainant through sale deed.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that petitioner No. 1 has falsely been implicated in this case because he happens to be father of co-accused Rakesh Kumar. It is further submitted that petitioner No. 2 is identifier to the sale deed and petitioner No. 3 is deed writer and they have got no concern with the alleged occurrence . Petitioners are not the beneficiaries of the alleged sale deed. As a matter of fact, land in question was registered in the name of other co-accused persons. Moreover, the dispute involved in this case is with regard to sale and purchase of land for which informant has got remedy before Court below . Petitioners claim clean antecedent.

5 . Learned counsel for the State oppose the bail petition .

6 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, in the event of arrest or surrender within eight weeks from today, let the petitioners, as named above, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Sub- Division Judicial Magistrate Sikrahana

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24576 of 2025(3) dt.29-07-2025 3/3

at Dhaka District- East Champaran in connection with Complaint Case No. 307 of 2023 subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure .

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)

Koushik/-

U T