Dismissed¶22

Prabhat Kumar Dubey v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC22 Apr 2026CR. MISC./73573/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous No.73573 of 2025, decided 22-04-2026 by Prabhat Kumar Singh, J. Anticipatory bail application of Prabhat Kumar Dubey, accused in PS Case No. 61 of 2020 (Katihar complaint case) under Sections 384, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, alleging execution of forged sale deeds over land subject matter of Probate Case No. 02 of 2018; prayer rejected on the ground of specific and direct accusation. Counsel: Sharda Nand Mishra and Isha Mishra for petitioner; Umeshanand Pandit, APP for the State.

What did the court decide?

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the specific and direct nature of the accusation, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner was rejected. ¶22

Prabhat Kumar Dubey Vs The State of Bihar — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73573 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-61 Year-2020 Thana- KATIHAR COMPLAINT CASE DistrictKatihar

¶3

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

¶4

Prabhat Kumar Dubey S/o Late Shivnath Dubey @ Late Siddhnath Dubey Resident of Village-Paharpur, P.S.-Dankhora, District- Katihar

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Puja Kumari D/o Late Siddhnath Dubey @ Late Shivnath Dubey Resident of Village-Paharpur, P.S.-Dankhora, District- Katihar

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, Advocate Ms. Isha Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶11

5 22-04-2026

¶12

Heard Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, learned counsel

¶13

appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

¶14

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 384, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

The prosecution case, which is based on a complaint petition, in brief, is that mother of the complainant/informant executed a registered will in favour of the complainant with respect to a land. The complainant filed a probate case bearing Probate Case No. 02 of 2018 and this

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73573 of 2025(5) dt.22-04-2026 2/3

¶17

petitioner, who is own brother of the complainant, cheated her and executed forged sale deed in favour of Manoj Kumar Mandal, Chandan Kumar Sharma, Rambha Devi and Rita Devi without having right, title or possession over the piece of land which is subject matter of Probate Case No. 02 of 2018.

¶18

It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. Petitioner is own brother of the informant/complainant and due to mala fide intention, this false F.I.R. has been lodged. Moreover, the dispute is with regard to sale and purchase of land which is purely civil in nature and none of the acts, allegedly committed by this petitioner would give rise to any criminal liability. It is further submitted that if the complainant/informant has any case against this petitioner about execution of forged sale deed, she can challenge the same before the competent authority by filing appropriate civil suit. Petitioner claims clean antecedents.

¶19

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and submitted that petitioner is named in the complaint petition and there is specific accusation that without having any right, title or possession over the piece of land of the

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73573 of 2025(5) dt.22-04-2026 3/3

¶21

complainant, he executed forged sale deed in favour of other coaccused persons. It is further submitted that petitioner has not dispute the fact that probate case is pending with regard to the land in question and during pendency of the same, this petitioner executed a sale deed and thus, this petitioner has cheated the complainant.

¶22

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and specific and direct nature of accusation, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected.

¶23

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)

¶24

shashank/-

¶25

U T

Prabhat Kumar Dubey v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhat Kumar Dubey v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Naoman @ Md. Nauman Vs The State of Bihar

Akloo Sahni Vs The State of Bihar

Bhaday Saw @ Bhaday Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Bittu Kumar @ Kundan Kumar @ Bittu @ Kundan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Raj Kumar Sinha Vs The State of Bihar

Avinash Kumar @ Avinesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar