Patna High Court
Shibu SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SHAILENDRA SINGH
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, holding that the allegations do not justify denial of bail.
Summary
Shibu Sah, a 70‑year‑old man with no prior criminal record, was named in a complaint (Case No. 1068c of 2022) alleging cheating under Section 420 of the IPC in a dispute over the sale of land. The complainant, Raja Ram Yadav, claimed that only a part of the agreed consideration of Rs. 14,00,000 had been paid and alleged that the petitioner had induced his son to sell the land through false pretences. The petitioner contended that the matter was essentially a civil dispute over unpaid consideration and that no criminal offence under Section 420 was made out. He applied for anticipatory bail, arguing his age, lack of antecedents, and that the allegations were baseless. The High Court, after considering the submissions, held that anticipatory bail could be granted, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, and ordered the petitioner to furnish a bail bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations of cheating under Section 420 IPC in the present land‑sale dispute constitute a cognizable offence warranting denial of anticipatory bail
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the dispute appears to be civil in nature
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 420
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 420 IPC
- civil dispute
- land sale
- criminal procedure
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13116 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1068 Year-2022 Thana- SAHARSA COMPLAINT CASE
District- Saharsa
======================================================
Shibu Sah Son of Late Bhumi Sah Resident of Village- Simraha ward no. 35,
P.S.- Saharsa Sadar, District- Saharsa
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Raja Ram Yadav Son of Late Siyalal Yadav Resident of Village- Amha Tola
Sapardaha, P.S.- Supaul, Dist.- Supaul
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 26-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Complaint Case No. 1068c of 2022 registered for the
offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is a seventy year
old person having no criminal antecedent. The prosecution case
is based on a complaint filed by O.P. No. 2, and while recording
his statement, the complainant fairly accepted that there was an
agreement for sale of a particular piece of land for a
consideration amount of Rs. 14,00,000/-. He further admitted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13116 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
2/3
that only Rs. 3,01,000/- had been paid to the accused, the
petitioner and his son. In view of his own statement, it is clearly
evident that the major part of the fixed consideration amount has
not been paid by O.P. No.2. It is further submitted that the actual
dispute was of a different nature, as O.P. No. 2 himself
approached the petitioner offering to purchase his land, which
was declined by the petitioner. So far as the payment of Rs.
51,000/- via cheque by O.P. No. 2 in favour of the petitioner’s
son is concerned, it is submitted that the same was intentionally
given by O.P. No. 2, and later he concocted a false story to
pressurize the petitioner and his son to sell the land. It is
contended that the entire allegations levelled by O.P. No. 2
primarily constitute a civil dispute, and no offence under
Section 420 of the IPC is made out against the petitioner. It is
lastly submitted that the petitioner’s son is in judicial custody.
4. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the
prayer for bail of the petitioner.
5. In the facts and circumstances of this case,
considering the aforesaid submissions and the pleas taken by the
petitioner in his petition, coupled with the nature of allegation,
this Court is inclined to grant him the relief of anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, let the petitioner named-above, in the event of his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13116 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
3/3
arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a
period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail
on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the Court concerned in connection with
Complaint Case No. 1068c of 2022, subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
(Shailendra Singh, J)
maynaz/-
U T
Checking your session…