Patna High Court
Sunil Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, holding that the matter is a civil dispute and they are bona‑fide purchasers, subject to the conditions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) BNSS.
Summary
The petitioners, who are relatives of the informant, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under several sections of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) relating to alleged fraud in a land partition. The prosecution alleged that the informant’s mother had executed a partition deed excluding the daughters, and that the daughters and their husbands conspired to sell their share. The petitioners contended that the dispute was essentially civil, that they were bona‑fide purchasers of the land and that the sale deed identified them correctly. The State opposed the bail on the basis of the FIR allegations. Considering that the matter primarily involved a family land dispute and the petitioners were bona‑fide buyers, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond and sureties, and conditioned it on compliance with Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the BNSS. The order directs that the bail be effected if the petitioners are arrested or surrender within four weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case that is essentially a civil land dispute but filed under criminal provisions of the BNSS.
- Whether the petitioners, as alleged purchasers, can be considered innocent parties warranting bail despite the FIR allegations.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 316(2), 316(3), 318(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 3(5), 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- civil dispute
- land partition
- property dispute
- BNSS
- Section 438
- Section 482
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3117 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-53 Year-2025 Thana- Krishnabraham District- Buxar
======================================================
1. Sunil Kumar Singh S/o Ramkrishna Singh Resident of Village- Naya
Bhojpur, Police Station - Naya Bhojpur in the district of Buxar.
2. Sanjay Kumar Singh S/o Jagdish Singh Resident of Village- Dharahara,
Police Station- Krishnabrahm in the district of Buxar.
3. Chandrawati Devi W/o Late Shiv Shankar Singh Resident of Village-
Dharahara, Police Station- Krishnabrahm in the district of Buxar.
4. Shiv Shambhu Singh S/o Ram Vijay Prasad Singh @ Ram Vijay Singh
Resident of Village- Dharahara, Police Station- Krishnabrahm in the district
of Buxar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Syed Ehteshamuddin, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
2 28-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2),
316(3), 318(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the informant’s
mother has purchased a land and during her lifetime she
executed a partition deed, where she gave no share to the
daughters. The informant’s three sisters and their husbands in
conspiracy sold away their share of land.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3117 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
dispute involved in the present case is essentially civil in nature
and admittedly the accused nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the complaint case
are sisters of the complainant/informant, Madan Prasad Sah. It
is further submitted that as a matter of fact, the land in question
was divided amongst the three daughters and two sons and the
same was mutated in the name of daughters as well and it was
bonafide share that they had sold to the petitioners no.1, 2 and 3,
who are the bonafide purchasers of the said land while the
petitioner no. 4 is identifier on the said sale deed.
5. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for
anticipatory bail on the basis of allegations made in the First
Information Report.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances and considering the fact that the case at hand
essentially involves civil dispute amongst family of the
informant and the present petitioners being the bonafide
purchasers of the land and identifier on the sale deed, let the
above named petitioners, be released on bail, in the event of
their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a
period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3117 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
3/3
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below
where the case is pending/successor Court in connection with
Krishnsbrahm P.S. Case No. 53 of 2025, subject to the condition
as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C/ Section 482
(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/-
U T
Checking your session…