Patna High Court
Shambhu Dhari Kumar @ Shambhu PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The petitioner is entitled to bail subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Summary
Shambhu Dhari Kumar petitioned for bail after his arrest in connection with Complaint No.3035 of 2020, which alleged offences under several IPC sections and the Arms Act relating to a fraudulent land sale. The petitioner argued that he was merely an identifier in the sale deeds, had no specific allegations against him, and possessed no criminal antecedent, while the actual beneficiaries had already received anticipatory bail. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the offences. The Court considered the lack of direct accusation, the petitioner’s clean record, and the existing anticipatory bail to the beneficiaries, and consequently ordered his release on bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. The bail order also imposed strict compliance requirements, including regular court appearances and prohibition against tampering with witnesses or evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner, who is merely an identifier in the sale deeds and has no criminal antecedent, is entitled to bail in a case involving multiple serious offences.
- Whether the grant of anticipatory bail to the actual beneficiaries precludes the need for bail to the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- BNSS — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120, 323, 324, 341, 342, 379, 384, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506
Subjects
- bail
- anticipatory bail
- criminal procedure
- property fraud
- IPC offences
- no criminal antecedent
- court conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34012 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3035 Year-2020 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
Shambhu Dhari Kumar @ Shambhu Prasad Son of Gopal Yadav Resident of
Village- Pansuhi PS -Dulhin Bazar, Dist- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Babita Devi son of Nagendra Pathak Resident of village- Faridpur jamui,
Post- Jamui, Ps- Dulhin Bazar, Dist- Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shyam Kishore, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s: Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 25-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in
connection with Complaint Case No.3035 of 2020, registered
for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468,
471, 323, 324, 341, 342, 379, 384, 504, 506, 120B of the Indian
Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the F.I.R., the co-accused Madhu Pathak
allegedly attempted to sell the land of Late Jagatanand Pathak at
the Registry Office, Bikram, by falsely claiming to be his
second wife. Upon learning of the transaction on 11.11.2020, the
complainant and her mother-in-law objected to the sale and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34012 of 2026(2) dt.25-05-2026
2/3
alleged that the accused was fraudulently transferring the
property.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. It is submitted that there is no specific allegation
against the petitioner. The petitioner is merely an identifier in
the sale deeds alleged to have been executed in favour of
Satendra Yadav and Anil Kumar, who have already been
extended the privilege of anticipatory bail. The petitioner is said
to have identified Deed Nos. 7078 and 7114. It is further
submitted that the petitioner is not the beneficiary of the
execution of the aforesaid sale deeds. Lastly, it is submitted that
the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State
has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and taking into account that the actual beneficiaries have
already been granted anticipatory bail and that the petitioner has
no criminal antecedent, let the above named petitioner, be
released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the
learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34012 of 2026(2) dt.25-05-2026
3/3
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Patna/Successor Court
in connection with Complaint Case No.3035 of 2020 subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS
as well as the following conditions:
(i) One of the bailors should be the
family member/relative/known of the
petitioner(s) who shall provide official
document/ personal affidavit to show his/her
bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on
each and every date before the Trial Court
and failure to do so for two consecutive dates
without plausible reason will entail
cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the
Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no
way try to induce or promise or threat the
witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to
take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist
from committing any criminal offence again,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to
take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
shikha/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.