Patna High Court
Urmila KuerversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to a bond, sureties and the condition that the informant may seek cancellation if the settlement is not fulfilled.
Summary
The petitioners, Urmila Kuer and Gautam Kumar Singh, were accused of offences under Sections 406, 420, 120B, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code in a land‑sale dispute. They had previously filed three anticipatory bail applications, the first of which was withdrawn, the second granted with a condition to surrender after repaying the informant, and the third dismissed for failure to comply. The petitioners now claim the dispute is settled, having repaid Rs.12 lakhs to the informant, and seek fresh anticipatory bail. The State opposed, but accepted that the matter is resolved. The Court, applying Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and allowed the informant to move for cancellation if the settlement is not honoured. The order thus releases the petitioners from arrest unless the conditions are breached.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate exercise of discretion by the Court in granting anticipatory bail when the dispute underlying the criminal allegations has been settled?
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail despite previous non‑compliance with earlier bail conditions?
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438
- Indian Penal Code
- land dispute
- settlement
- bail bond
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23299 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-219 Year-2023 Thana- MADANPUR District- Aurangabad
======================================================
1. Urmila Kuer Son of Late Kailash Singh R/o Village - Kushaha, P.S. -
Madanpur, Dist. - Aurangabad(BIhar).
2. Gautam Kumar Singh @ Gautam Kumar @ Gautam Singh Son of Late
Kailash Singh R/o Village - Kushaha, P.S. - Madanpur, Dist. -
Aurangabad(BIhar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Smt. Anamika Singh Wife of Chandan Kumar Singh R/o Village - Pena, P.S.
- Madanpur, P.O. - Dumari Belwa, Dist. - Aurangabad.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Madhuri Lata
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 08-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420,
120B, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent. It is next
submitted that petitioners had earlier moved this Court seeking
anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc. No.58179 of 2023 and the
same was permitted to be withdrawn by an order dated
01.05.2024 but thereafter Urmila Kuer again filed Cr. Misc.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23299 of 2026(2) dt.08-05-2026
2/3
No.56621 of 2024 and the same came to be allowed by an order
dated 12.09.2024 with certain conditions, as Urmila Kuer before
the court had accepted that the land has been sold and she is
willing to repay the amount to the informant, for which, she had
given an undertaking that at the time of surrender, in terms of
the order dated 12.09.2024, the amount shall be paid to the
informant but then Urmila Kuer was not in a position to arrange
the amount for giving it to the informant hence could not
surrender within the time stipulated in the order dated
12.09.2024 in Cr. Misc. No.56621 of 2024. It is further
submitted that thereafter Urmila Kuer filed Cr. Misc. No.80735
of 2024, seeking extension of time for surrender but then the
same also came to be dismissed by an order dated 06.12.2024,
as such, it is submitted that this is the third anticipatory bail
application of Urmila Kuer and second anticipatory bail
application of Gautam Kumar. It is next submitted that
petitioners and informant are related and the dispute is with
respect of selling of land and the petitioners were willing to
return the amount but then could not arrange the amount in time
hence could not surrender but now petitioners have repaid the
entire amount of Rs.12 lakhs to the informant and in support of
the same, a supplementary affidavit has been filed along with a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23299 of 2026(2) dt.08-05-2026
3/3
joint compromise petition filed by the parties before the learned
trial court on 09.03.2026.
4. Learned APP also fairly submits that since the
dispute stands resolved, hence sending the petitioners to jail
would be an empty formality.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
petitioners above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender
before the learned trial court within a period of fourteen weeks
from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
trial court where the case is pending/successor court in
connection with Madanpur P.S. Case No. 219 of 2023, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
6. However, the informant would be at liberty to file
an application seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted
to the petitioners, in the event, if the case has not been
compromised and the amount of Rs. 12 lakhs has not been paid
to the informant, as recorded in the supplementary affidavit.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.