Patna High Court
Shambhu SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court allowed anticipatory bail to all petitioners subject to prescribed conditions.
Summary
The Patna High Court heard three anticipatory bail applications arising from the same Harsidhi police case involving alleged extortion, assault, cheating and forgery related to a disputed land sale deed. The informant claimed the accused demanded Rs.2,00,000, assaulted him and fraudulently executed a sale deed through the petitioners, while the petitioners contended the deed was validly registered and the case was a civil title dispute. The State opposed bail, arguing the sale deed was fabricated and that proclamation orders had been issued. The Court observed that the sale deed had indeed been registered and a title suit for its cancellation was pending, and that the criminal allegations were intertwined with a civil dispute. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail to all petitioners, subject to a Rs.10,000 bond, sureties, and conditions regarding court attendance and disclosure of criminal antecedents.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC can be granted in a case involving alleged extortion, assault and cheating.
- Whether the existence of a pending civil title suit and the validity of the disputed sale deed affect the grant of bail.
- Whether the petitioners' criminal antecedents preclude the issuance of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 warrant denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 3, 308, 318, 336, 338, 340, 61
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438, 482
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- land dispute
- sale deed
- extortion
- cheating
- section 438
- section 482
- criminal antecedents
- civil title suit
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22955 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-736 Year-2025 Thana- HARSIDHI District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. Shambhu Singh, S/O Lt Ramshray Singh Resident Of Vill.- Laukariya, P.s-
Harsidhi, Dist- East Champaran
2. Satendra Singh @ Ladu Singh, Son of Shambhu Singh Resident Of Vill.-
Laukariya, P.s- Harsidhi, Dist- East Champaran
3. Kunal Kumar, Son of Akhilesh Singh Resident Of Vill.- Laukariya, P.s-
Harsidhi, Dist- East Champaran
4. Sunila Devi, Wife of Ranjit Singh Resident Of Vill.- Laukariya, P.s-
Harsidhi, Dist- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 23113 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-736 Year-2025 Thana- HARSIDHI District- East Champaran
======================================================
Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Singh, S/O Narad Singh Resident of Village -
Laukariya, P.S- Harsidhi, District- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 23409 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-736 Year-2025 Thana- HARSIDHI District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. Mala Devi, W/o Sanjay Rai Resident of Village- Sher (Shiriya), PS-
Sidhwaliya, District- East Champaran
2. Madhu Devi, W/o Chandra Prakash Shahi R/o vill - Shouhari, P.S.- Dhamo
Bazar, Dist.- Siwan
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22955 of 2026(4) dt.01-07-2026
2/8
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 22955 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sujit Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Shruti Kumari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 23113 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Karandeep Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Brajendra Nath Pandey, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 23409 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Karandeep Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 01-07-2026 Since all these anticipatory bail applications arise
from the same P.S., hence, they are being heard together and
disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P.s for the State.
3. The petitioners, namely, Shambhu Singh, Satendra
Singh @ Ladu Singh, Kunal Kumar and Sunila Devi in Cr.
Misc. No.22955 of 2026; Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Singh in Cr.
Misc. No.23113 of 2026 and Mala Devi and Madhu Devi in Cr.
Misc. No.23409 of 2026 apprehend their arrest in connection
with Harsidhi P.S. Case No.736 of 2025 registered for the
offences under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 308(2),
61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
4. As per the prosecution case, the informant gave a
written report stating that he had purchased certain land on
08.11.2021 from Akhilesh Singh and thereafter, he was in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22955 of 2026(4) dt.01-07-2026
3/8
peaceful possession of the same. It is alleged that when the
informant had gone to plough the said land, the named accused
persons, including the petitioners, came there and asked him to
stop the work, and they also demanded Rs.2,00,000/- as
extortion. When the informant denied giving the extortion
amount, they started assaulting him and even snatched away his
gold chain. It is further alleged that on 17.10.2025, the named
accused persons, including the petitioners, under a conspiracy,
by preparing fake documents, got a sale deed registered through
Mala Devi (petitioner) in which the petitioners Sunila Devi,
Shambhu Singh, and Madhu Devi were made identifiers.
5. It is alleged by the informant that accused Kunal
Kumar and Abhishek Kumar, both sons of Akhilesh Singh, in
conspiracy, had got the land registered through the sister of
Akhilesh Singh, i.e., Mala Devi, in the name of others. It has
lastly been alleged that all the accused persons, with an
intention to cheat, had got the said sale deed executed despite
knowing the fact that the land had already been sold by
Akhilesh Singh to the informant in the year 2021.
6. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of all the
petitioners, as stated hereinabove, submits that the allegations
against the petitioners are false and concocted, as Mala Devi
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22955 of 2026(4) dt.01-07-2026
4/8
and Madhu Devi (petitioners), had executed the sale deed, being
one of the co-sharers of the property and in fact, Mala Devi was
aggrieved by the fact that Akhilesh Singh had wrongly executed
the sale deed in the year 2021 in favour of the informant. The
learned counsels have further pointed out that Mala Devi and
her sister, Madhu Devi, realizing the fact that the sale deed
executed by their brother, Akhilesh Singh, was void, filed a Title
Suit No. 179 of 2025 before the Court of Sub-Judge, Areraj,
East Champaran, wherein the present informant as well as their
brother, Akhilesh Singh, are party defendants and the relief
sought therein is with respect to cancellation of the sale deed
dated 08.11.2021 executed by Akhilesh Singh in favour of the
informant, Virendra Kumar.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners, Shambhu Singh, Satendra Singh, Kunal Kumar, and
Sunila Devi, submitted that Shambhu Singh stood as a witness
to the said sale deed, while the allegations against Satendra
Singh and Kunal Kumar are that they had demanded rangdari
and were instrumental in getting the sale deed executed. The
fourth petitioner, namely, Sunila Devi, was a purchaser, and
therefore, they cannot be saddled with the liability of cheating,
as they had not received any consideration amount for the said
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22955 of 2026(4) dt.01-07-2026
5/8
sale deed.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Singh, however, submits
that the only allegation against this petitioner is that he had
abused the informant and demanded extortion money, however,
he is in no way connected with the execution of the sale deed
and neither stood as a witness or identifier nor had received any
consideration amount.
9. It has thus been submitted by the learned counsels
that it is not a case where the sale deed executed by the sisters of
Akhilesh Singh can be said to be forged in any manner, as it was
validly executed in the Registrar's Office. Since there is a
dispute with regard to the share in the property, a title suit is
already pending, the present criminal case has been lodged only
to coerce the petitioners into a compromise.
10. The learned counsels for the petitioners submits
that the petitioners Madhu Devi and Mala Devi have clean
antecedents, while petitioner Shambhu Singh has three criminal
antecedents, petitioner Satendra Singh has two criminal
antecedents, petitioner Kunal Kumar has one criminal
antecedent and petitioner Sunila Devi has one criminal
antecedent. It has further been submitted that petitioner Pankaj
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22955 of 2026(4) dt.01-07-2026
6/8
Kumar has six criminal antecedents against his name.
11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant and the learned APP for the State have vehemently
opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submit that the
petitioners connived in getting the sale deed executed, knowing
very well that the land in question was sold by Akhilesh Singh
to the informant in the year 2021. It has further been submitted
that the said sale deed is false and fabricated, as Mala Devi and
her sister had no right, title, or interest over the land in question,
and, therefore, the sale deed cannot be said to have been validly
executed. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for
the informant that proclamation orders have been issued in the
present case and therefore, the present application for
anticipatory bail is not maintainable.
12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this
Court finds that, rightly or wrongly, the sale deed has been
executed by the sisters of Akhilesh Singh, claiming their right,
title and interest over the land in question and the same was duly
registered before the office of the Registrar and a title suit for
cancellation of the earlier sale deed executed by the vendor of
the informant is already pending. In view of such fact, let the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22955 of 2026(4) dt.01-07-2026
7/8
petitioners, namely, Shambhu Singh, Satendra Singh @ Ladu
Singh, Kunal Kumar and Sunila Devi in Cr. Misc. No.22955 of
2026; Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Singh in Cr. Misc. No.23113 of
2026 and Mala Devi and Madhu Devi in Cr. Misc. No.23409 of
2026 be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or
surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four
weeks from today, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-(ten
thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is
pending/successor court in connection with Harsidhi P.S. Case
No.736 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with
corresponding Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S. as well as subject to
the following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioners shall
be their close relative.
(ii) The petitioners shall remain physically
present in Court on each date of the trial.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive
dates, or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail
bond of the petitioners will be liable to be cancelled by
the Court concerned.
(iv) If the petitioners are found involved in
similar nature of offence in future, the prosecution shall
be at liberty to move for cancellation of their bail bond.
(v) The learned Court below shall verify the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22955 of 2026(4) dt.01-07-2026
8/8
criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any
stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed
their criminal antecedent, the court below shall take
step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners.
However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the
above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose
of or in the name of verification.
13. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is
allowed.
14. It is made clear that the observation, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
manoj/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.