Patna High Court
Mithilesh Kumar Singh @ Mithlesh Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Mithilesh Kumar Singh, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a FIR alleging fraudulently selling ancestral land using a forged power of attorney, intimidation, and threats of filing a case under the SC/ST Act. The petitioner contended that the dispute was purely civil, the power of attorney had been cancelled in 2015, and that the informant should have approached a civil court. The State argued that the allegations involved criminal offences under the Bihar Negotiable Securities Act, 2023, and that investigation and interrogation were necessary. The court examined the submissions, noting that the power of attorney issue did not preclude criminal liability and that the matter required thorough investigation. Consequently, the court refused to grant anticipatory bail, rejecting the petitioner's application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the allegations involve alleged fraud, forgery, and intimidation under the Bihar Negotiable Securities Act, 2023.
- Whether the dispute is purely civil and thus bars the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the cancellation of the power of attorney in 2015 negates criminal liability for the alleged land fraud.
- Whether investigation and interrogation of the accused are necessary before bail can be considered.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- land fraud
- forged power of attorney
- civil dispute
- criminal investigation
- SC/ST Act threat
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20931 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-327 Year-2025 Thana- NAGAR District- Vaishali
======================================================
Mithilesh Kumar Singh @ Mithlesh Kumar Singh S/O Late Birchandra Singh
R/O Rambhadra, P.S- Hajipur Town,Dist- Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Murari Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Prem Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Rabindra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 08-05-2026 1. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner Mr.
Krishna Prasad Singh, learned APP for the State Mr. Rabindra
Kumar and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with 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., 2023.
3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner has antecedent of one case and the
informant alleges that petitioner in connivance with Shailesh
and Rakesh sold his ancestral land to various purchasers based
on forged power of attorney, when power of attorney in favour
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20931 of 2026(3) dt.08-05-2026
2/5
of Shailesh 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 Shailesh in
name of his wife also got a lease with respect to the disputed
land executed, further, when informant requested his uncle i.e.
petitioner 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 Shailesh 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.
4. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated
in the instant case by the informant being own uncle of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20931 of 2026(3) dt.08-05-2026
3/5
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 next 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 deeds cancelled,
but then the informant instead of moving before a court of
competent civil jurisdiction, instituted the instant FIR only a
with a view to coerce the accused persons including the
petitioner into submission. It is also submitted that since
petitioner is own uncle of the informant and if lands have been
sold, in that event, the same can only be adjudicated by a court
of competent civil jurisdiction that as to whether the lands sold
by the petitioner was in excess of his share or not and if it was,
in that event, the informant would be duly compensated. It is
also submitted that the informant has instituted Title (Partition)
Suit No.343 of 2024 on 22.02.2025 which is pending
adjudication.
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 no doubt the petitioner and the informant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20931 of 2026(3) dt.08-05-2026
4/5
are related and at the first blush it appears that the dispute is
civil in nature but then it is not that all civil disputes do not have
criminal contours. It is next submitted that the sale deeds were
not executed by the petitioner but was executed by Shailesh,
based on a power of attorney which was executed in his favour
by the petitioner but then it is asserted and submitted that the
sale deed executed by the petitioner in favour of Shailesh was
cancelled in the year 2015 itself, but then Shailesh in the year
2017, based on the same power of attorney started selling land
fraudulently in connivance with petitioner and Rakesh. It is also
submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed, wherein from
perusal of one of the sale deeds execuited by Shailesh on
24.07.2017, it would manifest that petitioner is an identiifer on
the sale deed and it has been recorded that the power of attorney
executed earlier is still in force when the fact is that the power
of attorney was cancelled in the year 2015 itself. It is thus
submitted that since Shailesh was selling the land of the
informant based on the power of attorney which got cancelled
in the year 2015 executed by petitioner but still petitioner
supported Shailesh on the issue of power of attorney only for
the reason that his lands were not sold and the same is an aspect
of investigation.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20931 of 2026(3) dt.08-05-2026
5/5
6. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner is not able to rebut the submissions of the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant that power of
attorney executed by the petitioner in favour of Shailesh was
cancelled in the year 2015 itself and thereafter based on the said
power of attorney, Shailesh sold different plots of land and in
the year 2017, the petitioner on a sale deed was an identifier and
the sale deed records that the lands have been sold based on the
power of attorney executed in favour of Shailesh, which is still
in existence.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
Court is in complete agreement with the submissions made by
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant that the
case requires to be investigated and interrogation of the accused
is necessary.
8. Accordingly, the Court is not inclined to extend the
privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
9. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail
stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.