Patna High Court
Ram Naresh SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioners, subject to bond, sureties and verification of their criminal antecedents.
Summary
The petitioners, three brothers from Sabnima village, sought bail after the police filed a criminal case alleging offences under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61 of the B.N.S., 2023 in connection with a land dispute. The prosecution’s version claimed the land was originally purchased by the informant’s ancestors in 1910, whereas the petitioners contended that the land belonged to the first petitioner, was bought by his ancestors in 1966, and was lawfully sold to the second petitioner in 2017. They argued that the case was false and filed after an eight‑year delay to pressure them in a civil matter. The State opposed bail, labeling the petitioners habitual offenders with multiple criminal antecedents. After considering the delay, the nature of the dispute, and the petitioners’ claims, the court granted bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to verification of their criminal antecedents and compliance with Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioners despite the serious offences alleged under the B.N.S., 2023.
- Whether the prosecution case is a false or vexatious proceeding intended to settle a civil land dispute.
- Whether the petitioners' prior criminal antecedents preclude the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- bail
- land dispute
- false prosecution
- criminal antecedent
- Section 318
- Section 336
- Section 338
- Section 340
- Section 61
- Section 482
- habitual offender
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25726 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-232 Year-2025 Thana- ATHMALGOLA District- Patna
======================================================
1. Ram Naresh Singh son of Late Bhuneshwar Singh R/o village- sabnima, PS
-Athmalgola, District- Patna
2. Ranjeet Kumar son of Kameshwar Singh R/o village- sabnima, PS
-Athmalgola, District- Patna
3. Mahesh Kumar Singh @ Mahesh Kumar @ Mahesh Singh son of Late
Bhuneshwar Singh R/o village- sabnima, PS -Athmalgola, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Rajeev, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kumar Veerendra Narayan, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 22-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Athmalgola P.S. Case No.232 of 2025, for allegedly having
committed offences under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2)
and 61 of the B.N.S., 2023.
3. As per the prosecution story, which has been lodged
on the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, to
the effect that 58 decimals of land was purchased by his
ancestors in the year 1910 and he is in peaceful possession of
the same. It has been alleged that the petitioner no.1, who is co-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25726 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
2/4
villager of the informant, sold the said land to his cousin,
Ranjeet Kumar (petitioner no.2) on 14.02.2017, in which the
petitioner no.3 is a witness.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the prosecution story is false and concocted. The true fact is that
the land belongs to the petitioner no.1 and the same was
purchased by his ancestors on 18.08.1966 from one Dharo
Mahto through registered sale deed and since then the petitioner
no.1 is coming in peaceful possession of the same. The rent
receipt was being issued in the name of the father of the
petitioner no.1 and therefore, he sold the said land to his cousin,
Ranjeet Kumar through a registered sale deed dated 14.02.2017.
After purchase of the land, the petitioner no.2 is coming in
peaceful possession of the said land and the same has been
mutated in his name. It is submitted that the informant has filed
the present case in 2025, i.e., after eight years of the execution
of the sale deed. He further submits that the petitioner no.1 has
got seven criminal antecedents and in some of the cases, he has
been acquitted and in other cases he is on bail, except
Athmalgola P.S. Case No.281 of 2025 in which investigation is
going on. Similarly, the petitioner no.2 has got seven criminal
antecedents and in two cases, he has been acquitted while in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25726 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
3/4
other cases, he is on bail. Further, the petitioner no.3 has got
nine criminal antecedents, out of which, in two cases, he has
been acquitted, and is on bail in five cases and in two cases,
final form has been submitted
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer
for bail of the petitioners and submits that the petitioners are
habitual offenders and have been made accused in similar nature
of cases of land grabbing.
6. Having considered the rival submissions and after
going through the records, it appears that the informant has filed
the present case after eight years of execution of the sale deed
and has tried to put pressure upon the petitioners by filing the
present case in order to settle the civil dispute.
7. Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, let the
petitioners, above-named, in the event of their arrest or
surrender within a period of six weeks, be released on 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 A.C.J.M., Barh, Patna in connection with
Athmalgola P.S. Case No.232 of 2025, subject to the conditions
laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. with a further
condition that:-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25726 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
4/4
The learned court concerned shall verify the criminal
antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage it is found
that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedent, the
court concerned shall take steps for cancellation of bail bonds 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.
(Ritesh Kumar, J.)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…