Patna High Court
Dhananjay Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail, subject to a bond, sureties and verification of his criminal antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Dhananjay Kumar Singh, sought anticipatory bail after an FIR was lodged alleging that he fraudulently sold a plot of land already sold to the informant. The informant claimed the petitioner sold the same land to co‑accused without any right, invoking several sections of the Bihar Negotiable Sale Act, 2023. The petitioner argued that the land in question differed from that described in the informant’s deed and that the dispute was a civil family matter, not a criminal offence. The State and the informant opposed bail, citing the petitioner’s five prior cases related to land grabbing. The court observed that the matter was essentially a land‑dispute and, noting that co‑accused had already been granted anticipatory bail, ordered that the petitioner be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties, subject to verification of his criminal antecedents under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S despite the pending FIR and alleged criminal antecedents.
- Whether the alleged sale of the same land constitutes an offence under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Sale Act — s. 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 3(5)
- Bihar Negotiable Sale (Special) Act — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- land dispute
- criminal antecedent
- Section 482
- Bihar Negotiable Sale Act
- property fraud
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35775 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-352 Year-2025 Thana- PIPRAKOTHI District- East Champaran
======================================================
Dhananjay Kumar Singh S/o Ram Anup Singh @ Ramanup Singh R/o Village
- Mathurapur, P.S - Turkauliya, District - East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anshay Bahadur Mathur, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Rina Sinha, APP
For the informant : Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 26-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned
counsel for the informant and the learned A.P.P. appearing on
behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Piprakothi P.S. Case No. 352 of 2025, for allegedly having
committed offences under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2),
3(5) of 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 he purchased a land bearing Khata No. 50, Khesra No.
801, measuring an area of 4 Katha 4 Dhur by a registered sale
deed on 30.12.2020 from Rajnish Kumar Singh @ Puttu Singh and
since then he is in possession of the said land. He further alleged
that same land has been fraudulently sold by the petitioner and one
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35775 of 2026(2) dt.26-05-2026
2/4
Ravi Kumar Singh to Ram Pravesh Yadav, Umesh Kumar Yadav
and Raj Kumar without having any right and title.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
disputed plot of land bearing Khata No. 50, out of which, Rajnish
Kumar has transferred 4 Katha 4 Dhur in favour of the informant
by a registered sale deed no.10786, dated 30.12.2020, whereas
from the remaining 9 Katha 17 Dhur, the petitioner along with his
other co-sharer, Dhananjay Kumar Singh has executed another sale
deed on 04.07.2025 for an area measuring 4 Katha 4 Dhur in
favour of co-accused nos. 1, 2 and 4. The land, which has been
sold by the petitioner, is different from the land, which has been
mentioned by the informant. The learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that the boundary mentioned therein is different
from the sale deed, which has been executed by the informant. The
learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is a
dispute in between the family members and due to which the
present case has been filed. The informant, to put undue pressure
upon the petitioner herein, has filed the present First Information
Report. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
the petitioner has got five antecedents and all the cases have been
lodged by the co-sharer of the land in question.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the informant submits that the petitioner has sold the same land,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35775 of 2026(2) dt.26-05-2026
3/4
which was earlier sold by the informant and he further submits that
the petitioner along with co-accused are indulged in capturing and
grabbing different lands for which they have been named in
different cases relating to land grabbing and capturing. He further
submits that one of the co-accused, namely, Ravi Kumar has been
put behind bars and his bail has been rejected by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in one another case relating to land
grabbing.
6. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the state also
opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and
submits that the petitioner has got five antecedents relating to land
capturing and grabbing.
7. Having considered the rival submissions and after
going through the records, it appears that there is a land dispute in
between the parties and due to said dispute for sale of same plot of
land, which has been alleged by the informant, the present First
Informant Report has been lodged. The informant by putting
pressure upon the petitioner has filed the present case to settle the
civil remedy. It further appears that four co-accused, namely, Raj
Kumar @ Raj Kumar Ram , Umesh Kumar Yadav, Ram Pravesh
Yadav and Yogendra Rai have been granted the privilege of
anticipatory bail by a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide
order 08.04.2026, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 21728 of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35775 of 2026(2) dt.26-05-2026
4/4
2026.
8. Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, let the
petitioner, above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender
within a period of six weeks, be released on bail 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 Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Motihari in connection with Piprakothi P.S.
Case No.352 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down under
Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S with a further condition that:-
The learned court concerned shall verify the criminal
antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that
the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court
concerned shall take steps for cancellation of bail bond of the
petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bond in terms of the
above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in
the name of verification.
(Ritesh Kumar, J.)
Sanjay/Shital
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.