Dismissed¶22

Mahtab Alam v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC15 Apr 2026CR. MISC./83468/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail refused — cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy (SS 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 120B/34 IPC); alleged Rs. 1.10 crore plot sale fraud with Rs. 50 lakh advance and Rs. 35 lakh RTGS; petitioner absconded after interim bail and gave false undertaking to pay Rs. 50 lakhs (only Rs. 10 lakhs paid); Cr. Misc. application dismissed; trial court directed to expedite trial.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted to the petitioner; regular bail declined and the court below directed to expedite the trial. ¶22

Mahtab Alam Vs The State of Bihar — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83468 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-374 Year-2018 Thana- MAHUA District- Vaishali

¶3

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

¶4

Mahtab Alam Son of Late Abdul Gaffar Resident of Village - Mahua Mukundpur, P.S.- Mahua, District - Vaishali

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Priyanka Singh, For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shailendra Kumar, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶11

15 15-04-2026

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

¶13

counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶14

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Mahua P.S. Case No. 374/2018 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 120B/34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶15

3. As per the prosecution case, brothers Waseem and Mahtab Alam (petitioner) are alleged to have cheated the informant by selling a plot for 1.10 crore with 50 lakh₹ ₹ advance and after RTGS transfer of 35 lakh, sale deed was₹ executed and the petitioner is also alleged to have extorted a Scorpio vehicle and phone. The land in question belonged originally to Kaushalya Devi, who had already sold the land to

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83468 of 2024(15) dt.15-04-2026 2/2

¶17

others.

¶18

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case. Learned counsel next submits that petitioner had undertaken to pay the complainant Rs. 50 lakhs out of which he has paid Rs. Rs. 10 lakhs and the remaining Rs. 40 lakhs has not been paid by him. Learned counsel further submits that he has no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 04.09.2024. The petitioner undertakes to co-operate in the case/ trial.

¶19

5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner.

¶20

6. Petitioner after grant of interim bail was absconding and he has surrendered pursuant to the orders of this Court.

¶21

7. Considering the huge amount of money cheated by the petitioner and also the false undertaking given by the petitioner in this Court, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶22

8. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed and the court below is directed to expedite the trial.

¶23

(Sandeep Kumar, J)

Mahtab Alam v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahtab Alam v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maya Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Ashok Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Neeraj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Naresh Kumar Das @ Naresh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Maymun Khatoon @ Maimun Khatoon @ Maymul Khatoon Vs The State of Bihar

Gurdeli Sah @ Raj Narayan Sah Vs The State of Bihar