Patna High Court
Dhananjay Tiwari @ Brijmohan Tiwari @ ChunnuversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner subject to a bond, sureties and the condition that the trial court may cancel the bail if he attempts to delay the trial.
Summary
The petitioner, Dhananjay Tiwari, was arrested in connection with a land‑sale dispute and charged under Sections 467, 468 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code for alleged forgery and criminal conspiracy. The FIR alleges that forged sale deeds and a fake power of attorney were used to cheat the informant, with the petitioner purportedly receiving a commission of Rs.50,000. The petitioner contended that he was unaware of any forgery, that his role was limited to receiving a commission, and that he would cooperate with the trial if released on bail. The State opposed the bail application, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences. The Court, after considering the submissions, ordered the petitioner’s release on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties of the same amount, subject to the trial court’s power to cancel the bail if he attempts to delay the trial. The order also directed that any attempt to delay framing of charge or trial could lead to cancellation of the bail bonds.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused person charged under Sections 467, 468 and 120(B) of the IPC in a land‑fraud case.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged role as a commission‑receiver justifies bail despite the seriousness of the alleged forgery and conspiracy.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 467, 468
Subjects
- bail
- forgery
- criminal conspiracy
- IPC
- land fraud
- commission
- trial court
- surety
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31835 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-716 Year-2023 Thana- RUPASPUR District- Patna
======================================================
Dhananjay Tiwari @ Brijmohan Tiwari @ Chunnu S/o Late Damodar Tiwari
Resident of Rupaspur Bhattha Par, P.S. - Rupaspur, Dist. - Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 08-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 120(B) of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case and is in custody since
24.03.2026 and the informant alleges that the petitioner along
with nine named accused persons came and showed a piece of
land as detailed in the F.I.R. and disclosed that the land has been
purchased by Sunita Devi from Chunnu Kumar on 23.09.2020.
Further, Sunita Devi had executed a power of attorney in favour
of her son for selling the land and based on the power of
attorney, Naveen executed a deed of absolute sale with respect
to 1 Katha 10 Dhur of land for an amount of Rs.75 lakhs and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31835 of 2026(2) dt.08-05-2026
2/4
Amrish Kumar became a witness on the sale deed. Further, an
amount of Rs.57 lakhs was transferred to Naveen by NEFT and
an amount of Rs.18 lakhs in cash and through electronic mode
was given to Santosh and his wife Pinki and Rs.5 lakhs was
given in cash to the mediator, i.e., Rs.1.5 lakhs to Amrish
Kumar, Rs.1.5 lakhs to Priti and Rs.50,000/-each to Ramvrat
and petitioner. It is further alleged that for purchasing the land,
an amount of Rs.62 lakhs was taken as loan from the bank and
the informant is paying installment of Rs.76,000/- per month. It
is further alleged that after the boundary was constructed, the
same was demolished by some persons on the ground that the
land belongs to them and on inquiry, it transpired that Chunnu
Kumar never sold the land to Sunita Devi and the power of
attorney was a fake document. It also transpired that Chunnu
Kumar had sold the land pertaining to Khata No. 161 to Sunita
Devi and not the land pertaining to Khata No. 162 which was
sold to the informant. Further, Sunita Devi by making forgery in
the sale deed relating to Khata No. 161 got the land of the Khata
No. 162 mutated pertaining to Khesra No. 1155, area 5 Katha 9
Dhur 7 Dhurki, thus, alleges that all the accused persons in
connivance cheated the informant.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31835 of 2026(2) dt.08-05-2026
3/4
petitioner submits that from perusal of the allegation as alleged
in the FIR, it would manifest that thrust of the allegation of
committing forgery is against Sunita Devi and her son and the
petitioner is alleged to have received commission of
Rs.50,000/-. It is further submitted that even petitioner was not
aware of the forgery being committed by Sunita Devi and her
son, namely, Naveen. It is reiterated and submitted that
petitioner is in custody since 24.03.2026. It is next submitted
that if the privilege of regular bail is granted to the petitioner,
the petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in the trial
to prove his innocence.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes
the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner,
above-named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing
bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Trial Court where the case is pending in connection with
Rupaspur P.S. Case No. 716 of 2023.
7. However, it is made clear that if the learned Trial
Court comes to a conclusion that petitioner, after his release on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31835 of 2026(2) dt.08-05-2026
4/4
bail, is trying to delay the framing of charge or after framing of
charge is trying to delay the trial of the case in any manner, the
learned Trial Court, in both the conditions, shall be at liberty to
cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…