Patna High Court
Shadabur RahmanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Shadabur Rahman, sought anticipatory bail in a case alleging offences under Sections 420, 419, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code relating to alleged extortion and forgery of land documents. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner pressured the informant to sell a four‑acre land and threatened a sum of Rs 25 lakh, and that forged sale deeds were used to fraudulently transfer the property. The petitioner contended that he was neither the vendor, the vendee nor a witness to any of the disputed deeds and that the land had been sold long before his involvement. The State argued that the FIR directly implicated the petitioner. The Court, after considering the submissions, held that the petitioner’s lack of direct involvement in the forged deed warranted the grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail was allowed subject to a bail bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties and compliance with Section 438(2) of the CrPC.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail despite allegations under Sections 420, 419, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) and 34 of the IPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 34, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- extortion
- forgery
- land dispute
- IPC
- CrPC
- Section 438
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41012 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1041 Year-2023 Thana- ARARIA District- Araria
======================================================
Shadabur Rahman Son of Md. Daniyal Resident of Village- Lahtora, Ward
No. 4, P.S.- Araria,Distt.- Araria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Md. Shafaur Rahman@ Laddu Son of Nasimur Rahman Resident of Village
and Post- Chandradei, Ward no. 4, P.S.- Araria, Araria
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Helal Ahmad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : None
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
6 21-01-2026 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail,
arises out of Araria (Nagar) Police Station Case No. 1041 of
2023, disclosing offences under Sections 420, 419, 467, 468,
471, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case lodged by informant
Mohd. Shafaur Rahman @ Laddu that a land situated at Khata
No. 292,30 having Khesra No. 3545, 3543, 3536, 3542 having
total area of 4 acres and 218.6 decimal is registered in the name
of the informant’s father, namely, Naseemur Rahman. On
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41012 of 2025(6) dt.21-01-2026
2/4
22.03.2023, the petitioner along with other accused persons,
arrived at the residence of the informant and pressurised him to
sell the land. When the informant refused, the petitioner
threatened, “If you don’t agree to sell the land, then you have to
give an extortion amount of Rs. 25 lakh.” It has further been
alleged that on 15.09.2023, when the informant went to the
Zonal Office, Araria, he came to know that many persons have
applied for mutation of the land in question, which was sold in
their name. When the informant saw the deed no. 10747 having
token no. 5432/2023 dated 20.04.2023, he came to know that it
was completely forged. Upon inquiry, the informant came to
know that the accused persons have committed fraud by making
a forged Khatian in the name of Saidur Rahman and showing
themselves as his descendants.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has not committed any offence in the manner alleged.
The petitioner is not the vendor or the vendee in the sale deed,
which was allegedly executed. The copy of which is annexed as
Annexure 4 to the supplementary affidavit. The only allegation
against the petitioner is that the petitioner asked the informant to
sell their land, failing which he would have to pay a sum of Rs.
25 lakhs, but there is no allegation that 25 lakhs was paid to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41012 of 2025(6) dt.21-01-2026
3/4
petitioner by the informant. He next submits that in fact the land
in question was sold in 1971 by the father of the informant in
favour of some other person and a copy of the sale deed has
been annexed as Annexure 2 of the supplementary affidavit.
Though the purchasers of 1971 from the father of the informant
have resold the land in favour of some other persons, the
petitioner is neither the vendor, or vendee, nor the witness in
any of the sale deeds.
5. No one appears for the opposite party no. 2.
6. Learned counsel for the State submits that there is
the direct allegation against the petitioner in the FIR.
7. Regards being had to the submissions made by the
parties and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner
is neither the vendor nor the vendee nor the witness in the
allegedly forged sale deed, I am inclined to grant the petitioner
privilege of anticipatory bail.
8. This application is, accordingly, allowed.
9. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his
arrest or surrender before the Court below within four weeks, be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41012 of 2025(6) dt.21-01-2026
4/4
satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria, in
connection with Araria (Nagar) Police Station Case No. 1041 of
2023, subject to the condition laid down under Section 438 (2)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
Siwani/-
U T
Checking your session…