Patna High Court
Pradeep Singh @ Pradip Singh @ Mantu SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, directing surrender within four weeks and the furnishing of a bail bond with sureties, subject to the conditions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S.
Summary
The petitioner, Pradeep Singh, was implicated in a criminal complaint (Case No. 4349(C) of 2018) alleging cheating under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC for failing to execute a sale deed after receiving Rs. 9.6 lakh, while the consideration was Rs. 46 lakh. Singh contended that the amount was paid to a broker, Prabhakar Kumar, who was not named as an accused, and argued that the matter was essentially a civil dispute over land title, with a title suit pending before the Sub-Judge. The State opposed Singh's anticipatory bail, acknowledging the existence of documentary evidence but not disputing the civil nature of the dispute. The court, noting that the underlying issue is civil and that a title suit is pending, granted anticipatory bail, directing Singh to surrender within four weeks and furnish a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The order effectively releases the petitioner from immediate arrest while the civil proceedings continue.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case arising from alleged cheating under Sections 420 and 34 IPC.
- Whether the criminal complaint is maintainable given that the dispute is primarily civil in nature and a title suit is pending.
- Whether Sections 438(2) Cr.P.C. and 482(2) B.N.S.S. are applicable for granting bail in this circumstance.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 420
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- civil dispute
- land sale
- section 420 IPC
- section 34 IPC
- section 438 CrPC
- section 482 B.N.S.S.
- title suit
- criminal complaint
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14845 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4349 Year-2018 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
Pradeep Singh @ Pradip Singh @ Mantu Singh son of Bhajan Singh
village- Bhupatipur, Ps- R.K. Nagar Dist- Patna
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sarita Devi wife of Nand Kishore Kumar village- Dhelwa, Ps- R.K.
Nagar, Dist- Patna
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Saket Anand, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Navin Kumar Pandey, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr.Shashank Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
4 21-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State duly assisted by learned counsel for the
complainant/O.P. No.2.
2. The accused-petitioner, named in the complaint petition,
is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.
4349(C) of 2018 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per complaint, the petitioner, even after receiving
cash of Rs. 9,60,000/- in terms of agreement, failed to execute
the sale deed against final consideration amount of Rs. 46 Lakhs.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submitted that payment in issue was made to co-accused namely,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14845 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
2/3
Prabhakar Kumar, who was not made accused in the complaint
petition. It is submitted that said Prabhakar Kumar was broker to
the deal in issue and when due to certain unacceptable reasons,
the agreement could not take its final shape merely on the basis of
payment of Rs. 9,60,000/-, which made to the co-accused
Prabhakar Kumar, the complainant want to grab the valuable land,
which belonged to this petitioner by creating pressure through
present criminal prosecution, which is completely unoccasioned
and unwarranted, for the reason that primarily the dispute is of
civil in nature.
5. While concluding argument, learned counsel submitted
that petitioner is a man of clean antecedent and, moreover, for the
present dispute, Title Suit bearing No. 196/2020 is pending
between the parties, which is pending before learned Sub-Judge-
XIV, Patna Sadar.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State duly assisted by Mr.
Shashank Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the
informant, while opposing the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioner, submitted that the transaction was made with the
account of petitioner and in this regard some documentary
evidence is available, however, he could not disputed the fact that
dispute is purely of civil in nature, for which aforesaid title suit is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14845 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
3/3
pending in the court of learned Sub-Judge-XIV, Patna Sadar.
7. In view of the aforesaid factual submissions and by
taking note of the fact as primarily the dispute is of civil in nature
for which title suit, as mentioned aforesaid, is pending before the
competent court, accordingly, above-named petitioner, in the
event of his arrest/surrender within a period of four weeks from
this order, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing of bail
bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand only) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate -
1st Class, Patna Sadar/concerned court in connection with
Complaint Case No. 4349(C) of 2018, subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C/Section 482(2) of
the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (in short “B.N.S.S.”).
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-
U T
Checking your session…