Patna High Court
Mintu Rai @ Mantu RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner.
Summary
Petitioner Mintu Rai sought anticipatory bail after a complaint was lodged alleging his involvement in a fraudulent land sale, invoking IPC sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34. The prosecution alleged that Rai introduced the complainant to co‑accused who sold the land using forged documents, resulting in a loss of Rs. 16.65 lakh. Rai contended he was merely an identifier on the sale deed, received no consideration, and that the dispute was purely civil with no criminal act on his part. The State and the complainant opposed the bail, arguing the offences were serious. Considering the general nature of the accusations, the civil character of the dispute, and Rai’s clean antecedents, the Court allowed the anticipatory bail, directing bail on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, subject to Section 482(2) of the CrPC.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner can be held liable for offences under IPC sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 in a land‑sale dispute.
- Whether the petitioner’s role as merely an identifier on the sale deed attracts criminal liability.
- Whether anticipatory bail is appropriate given the nature of the allegations and the petitioner’s antecedents.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 34, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- land fraud
- civil dispute
- criminal liability
- IPC
- identifier
- clean antecedents
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19950 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-326 Year-2024 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
Mintu Rai @ Mantu Rai S/o- Poojan Rai @ Shivpujan Rai R/v- Khemichak
Faqrabad Ps- Sonepur Dist- Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Abhishek Ranjan S/o- Ramashrey Singh R/v- H.No-1, Sunaina Kunj
Magadh Vihar Colony Near SBI Gardanibagh Po- Anisabad Ps-
Gardanibagh Dist- Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Parashuram Singh, Advocate
For the State : Dr. Indiwar Kumari, APP
For the Complainant : Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 08-04-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
complainant/Opposite Party No. 2.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a complaint
case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406,
420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per prosecution case, complainant/Opposite
Party No. 2 alleged that this petitioner introduced him with
other co-accused persons for purchasing a land and relying on
the representation of this petitioner, the complainant agreed and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19950 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
2/3
paid Rs. 16,65,000/- for the land and the same was registered in
the name of the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 through
registered sale deed in which this petitioner was an identifier.
Later on, the complainant came to know that the accused
persons are party of a fraudulent gang engaged in selling land
on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and the land in
question is subject matter of a title suit being Title Suit No. 08
of 2020 and thus, the accused persons cheated the
complainant/Opposite Party No. 2.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has
committed no offence. From bare perusal of the complaint
petition it is apparent that the entire consideration money was
transferred by the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 in the
account of co-accused Ganga Rai, Bhushan Rai and Pamod
Kumar. Not a single farthing was paid in the account of this
petitioner. Petitioner is neither vendor nor vendee of the land in
question and he is merely identifier of the sale deed. It is further
submitted that after taking the consideration money, the land in
question has already been registered in the name of the
complainant/Opposite Party No. 2. Moreover, the dispute is with
regard to sale and purchase of land, which is purely civil in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19950 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
3/3
nature and none of the acts, allegedly committed by this
petitioner, would give rise to any criminal liability. Petitioner
claims clean antecedents.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for
the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 have vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, general and omnibus nature of accusation, nature of
dispute and clean antecedents of the petitioner, the prayer for
grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is allowed.
7. Accordingly, in the event of arrest/surrender within
a period of eight weeks from today, let the above named
petitioner be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.
10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned J.M. First Class, Patna in
connection with Complaint Case No. 326(C) of 2024, subject to
condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S..
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…