Patna High Court
Lalan KumarversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, distinguishing his position from the co‑accused family members.
Summary
The petitioner, Lalan Kumar, a land broker, was named in an FIR alleging his participation in forging a panchnama document in a family land dispute involving co‑accused Navin Kumar and Babita Devi, who are the son and daughter‑in‑law of the informant. The petitioner contended that he was only a witness to the sale deed and had no criminal antecedent, arguing that the FIR was filed after earlier favorable orders to Babita Devi in administrative proceedings. The State and the informant opposed his anticipatory bail, citing the alleged conspiracy and noting that anticipatory bail for the co‑accused had been rejected in a related case (Cr. Misc. No. 26635 of 2026). The Court examined the distinction between the petitioner and the family members, finding that the petitioner was an outsider with no direct involvement in the family dispute. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC and Section 482 of the B.N.S.S, 2023, subject to a bail bond, sureties, and cooperation with the investigation.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC and Section 482 B.N.S.S, 2023 despite allegations of participation in forgery.
- Whether the petitioner’s role as a witness distinguishes him from co‑accused family members whose anticipatory bail was denied.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S., 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- forgery
- land dispute
- Section 438
- Section 482
- Criminal Procedure
- B.N.S.S
- witness
- family dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26495 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-58 Year-2026 Thana- Bhararhi District- Madhepura
======================================================
Lalan Kumar S/O Dayanand Yadav R/O Vill.- Manikpur, Ward no. 1, P.S.-
Bharrahi, Dist.- Madhepura.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amrit Anand, Advocate
Mr. Sailesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Dinesh Pd. Verma, Advocate
Mr. Satya Veer, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Nirmala Kumari
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
2 01-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P
for the State and learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party
No.2.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered
under Sections 316 (2), 318 (4), 352, 351 (2) and 3 of B.N.S.
3. The allegation in the First Information Report is that
the petitioner is a land broker and he with connivance of other co-
accused Navin Kumar, prepared a forged document (panchnama).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it
would be evident from the First Information Report itself that the
dispute with regard to the plot of land is amongst the family of the
informant and although there is a general allegation of conspiracy
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26495 of 2026(2) dt.01-05-2026
2/4
attached to all the accused persons including the present petitioner,
the thrust of the allegation is actually against the co-accused Navin
Kumar and Babita Devi who are the son and the daughter-in-law of
the informant. The sale deed enclosed along with the First
Information Report also indicates the names of the vendor and the
vendee who are the said Navin Kumar and Babita Devi. On the said
document, the present petitioner has put his signature and thumb
impression merely as a witness. It is further submitted that the
dispute dates back to the panchnama which was prepared between
the parties which is of the year 2018 and the allegation upon this
petitioner was that he was also instrumental in getting some forged
signatures on the said panchnama which is of the year 2018.
However, subsequent to the same, proceedings went on before the
S.D.O, Madhepura and also before the D.C.L.R and the orders were
passed in favour of accused Babita Devi vide orders dated
22.07.2025 and 17.02.2026 and the other contesting parties is the
husband of the informant and other family members. It is further
submitted that the present FIR has been lodged on 20.02.2026,
subsequent to both the proceedings. It is further submitted that, in
any view of the matter, the litigation is within the family of the
informant and the petitioner is an outsider and has nothing to do
with the affairs of the family and is merely a signatory to the sale
deed.
5. Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26495 of 2026(2) dt.01-05-2026
3/4
the informant have vehemently opposed the present anticipatory bail
application. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
informant that the name of this petitioner has been taken along with
other accused persons with the allegation of conspiracy in preparing
the forged panchnama document. It has also been pointed out that the
anticipatory bail application of two of the other co-accused persons
Navin Kumar and Babita Devi have already been rejected by a co-
ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.04.2026 passed in
Cr. Misc. No. 26635 of 2026.
6. Taking the rival contention into consideration, it
appears that the anticipatory bail plea rejected by the co-ordinate
Bench relates primarily to the conduct of the son vis-a-vis his mother
and on this score alone, the anticipatory bail application has been
rejected. So far as the present petitioner is concerned, his case is
distinguishable from the case of the other co-accused persons as he
is neither family member nor any one related to the family of the
informant. In such view of the matter, let the petitioner who has no
criminal antecedent and no other documents indicating his signature
but for the sale deed in which he has signed as a witness, in the event
of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a
period of four weeks, be released on anticipatory bail in connection
with Bharrahi P.S. Case No. 58 of 2026 on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26495 of 2026(2) dt.01-05-2026
4/4
case is pending subject to the condition laid down under Section
438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 482(2) of the
B.N.S.S, 2023, subject to the condition(s):-
(i) However, the petitioner is directed to co-operate in the
investigation and subsequently in the trial and in case the petitioner
does not co-operate either in the investigation or subsequently in the
trial the prosecution would be at liberty to file an application to
cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
vashudha/-
U T
Checking your session…