Patna High Court
Shailesh Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
Shailesh Kumar Singh applied for anticipatory bail after a FIR was lodged alleging that he, in collusion with others, sold ancestral land using forged power of attorney, threatened victims, and operated as a land‑mafia. The informant claimed the petitioner had a history of twenty‑one criminal cases and that the alleged offences included sections 316(2), 318(4), 338, 336(2), 340(2) and 61(2) of the B.N.S., with a Section 84 process already issued. The petitioner argued the matter was essentially civil and that he was falsely implicated, seeking bail to avoid arrest. The State and the informant opposed bail, emphasizing the serious nature of the allegations, the forged documents, and the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. The Court, after considering the submissions, declined to grant anticipatory bail, holding that the seriousness of the accusations and the petitioner’s record warranted denial of the privilege.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given the alleged offences under the B.N.S. and his criminal antecedents
- Whether the FIR, though rooted in a civil land dispute, justifies criminal proceedings and denial of bail
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- land fraud
- forged power of attorney
- land grabbing
- SC/ST Act
- criminal antecedent
- civil dispute criminalisation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18695 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-327 Year-2025 Thana- NAGAR District- Vaishali
======================================================
Shailesh Kumar Singh S/o Rambahal Singh RO Village- Hela Bazar, PS-
Hajipur Town, District- Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Himanshu Ranjan
Mr. Sudhanshu Prakash
Mr. Manish Chandra Gandhi
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bharat Lal- A.P.P.
Mr. Binod Murari Mishra
Mr. Prem Kumar
Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Sharma
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 02-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in Hajipur Town P. S. Case No.327 of 2025 registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 338,
336(2), 340(2), 61(2) of the B.N.S.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has antecedent of twenty cases and the same is
rebutted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant and it is submitted that petitioner has antecedent of
twenty one cases. The learned counsel for the petitioner next
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18695 of 2026(2) dt.02-04-2026
2/4
submits that the informant alleges that petitioner in connivance
with Mithilesh and Rakesh sold his ancestral land to various
purchasers based on forged power of attorney when power of
attorney in favour of Mithilesh and Rakesh was cancelled
earlier. Further, accused were also helped in their misdeeds by
the Registry Office and the Circle Office, Hajipur. It is next
alleged that petitioner in name of his wife also got a lease with
respect to the disputed land executed. Further, when informant
requested his uncle Mithilesh to get the sale deed cancelled, his
named cousin brother abused and threatened that he will lose his
life for the land and that a case under SC/ST Act would be
instituted, since some purchasers belongs to SC/ST Category. It
is next alleged that petitioner is a land mafia and grabs land
under threat and if he is not able to grab the land by force then
gets the land owner implicated in cases relating to SC/ST Act. It
is next alleged that delay in instituting the FIR was because of
the reason that his father was looking after the land, hence
informant and his brother were not much aware of the land, but
they came to know about the misdeeds of the accused persons
including the petitioner when his father died on 01.12.2024 and
that Shailesh had taken Munna whom his father had entrusted
with the work of looking after the land in confidence.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18695 of 2026(2) dt.02-04-2026
3/4
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has been
falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next
submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the
FIR, it would manifest that the dispute is purely civil to which a
criminal colour has been given. It is further submitted that if
what has been alleged in the FIR is true, in that event, the
informant ought to have moved a court of competent civil
jurisdiction for getting the sale deed cancelled, but then, instead
of moving before a court of competent civil jurisdiction, the
instant FIR came to be instituted only a with a view to coerce
the accused persons including the petitioner into submission.
5. Learned A.P.P. as well as the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the anticipatory
bail application. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant submits that it is difficult to countenance what has
been submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner, but then, it is not that every civil dispute does not
have criminal contours. It is next submitted that specific
allegation has been alleged in the FIR that based on forged and
fabricated documents, the land of the informant has been
grabbed by the petitioner. It is next submitted that a specific
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18695 of 2026(2) dt.02-04-2026
4/4
allegation is alleged that petitioner is a land mafia and the same
also gets corroborated by the facts that he has antecedent of
twenty one cases. It is further submitted that process under
Section 84 BNSS has already been issued which amply
demonstrates that petitioner is evading the law.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
A.P.P. as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail
stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…