Patna High Court
Sanjeev Kant GautamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, holding that the complaint was unoccasioned as the matter is essentially civil.
Summary
The petitioners Sanjeev Kant Gautam, Pawan Kumar Mishra and Sunil Mishra were implicated in a private complaint alleging offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 323 and 504 of the IPC for allegedly selling land belonging to the complainant. They contended that the dispute was purely civil, stemming from a land transaction dating back to 1949, and that the criminal complaint was therefore unwarranted. The petitioners sought anticipatory bail, asserting a clean antecedent and arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision in Om Prakash Chhawnika v. State of Jharkhand was inapplicable. The State opposed the bail, maintaining that the criminal provisions were applicable. The Court held that the core issue was a civil land dispute, the criminal complaint was prima facie unoccasioned, and consequently granted bail to the petitioners subject to a bond and sureties, invoking Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Issues considered
- The appropriateness of granting anticipatory bail in a private complaint arising from a civil land dispute
- Whether the criminal complaint under the listed IPC sections is maintainable when the dispute is civil in nature
- Applicability of Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S. in granting bail
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 420, 467, 468, 504
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- civil land dispute
- criminal complaint
- clean antecedent
- IPC sections 420,467,468,323,504
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 B.N.S.S.
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42800 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-209 Year-2024 Thana- BHOJPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Bhojpur
======================================================
1. Sanjeev Kant Gautam S/o Late Rajnikant Mishra R/o.- Parshonda, P.S.-
Sahpur, District - Bhojpur, currently residing at 369, Ward No.- 5, Paharpur,
Mugalsaray, Beside Jaiswal High Court, District - Chandauli, Uttar Pradesh
2. Pawan Kumar Mishra S/o Late Nishakant Mishra R/o - Parshonda, P.S.-
Sahpur, Dist.- Bhojpur, currently residing at 64 A, Bank Colony, New Bus
Stand, Mithapur, Krishi Farm, Phulwari Sharif, District - Patna.
3. Sunil Mishra S/o Sashikant Mishra R/o - Parshonda, P.S.- Sahpur, Dist.-
Bhojpur, currently residing at Lambi Wali Gali, House No. 242, Shahabad
Daulatpur, North West, Delhi.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Raju Kumar Yadav S/o Late Chandranika Yadav R/o - Sonki, P.S.- Sahpur,
District - Bhojpur, Bihar, Mob.- 8969491407.
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Vishal Vikram Rana, Advocate
Ms.Misha Bharti, Advocate
Mr.Utkarsh Vikram Rana, Advocate
Mr.Kumar Saurav Dev, Advocate
Mr.Akash Priye, Advocate
Mr.Rishabh Kr. Rao, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Md. Matloob Rab, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 07-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
APP for the State.
2. The accused-petitioners, named in the complaint
petition, are apprehending their arrest in connection with
Complaint Case No. 209(C) of 2024 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 323 & 504 of the
Indian Penal Code.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42800 of 2026(2) dt.07-07-2026
2/3
3. The allegation against the petitioners is to sell a piece
of land belongs to complainant which was purchased by his
forefather in the year 1992-93.
4. Ms. Nivedita Nirvikar, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that though the
complaint is private in nature, but as NBW has been issued
against these petitioners, the same appears maintainable and not
covered by the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as
available through Om Prakash Chhawnika alias Om Prakash
Chabnika Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr. reported in 2026
SCC OnLine SC 676.
5. It is submitted that the land in issue was purchased by
the forefather of the petitioners in the year 1949 in terms of
Annexure ‘2’ series (page 48-51) of the present bail petition. It
is submitted that in view of aforesaid, apparently the dispute
between the parties is of civil in nature, for which the present
criminal complaint is completely unoccasioned and
unwarranted. Petitioners claimed clean antecedent.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
7. In view of the aforesaid factual submissions and by
taking note of the fact as the core issue is the land dispute
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42800 of 2026(2) dt.07-07-2026
3/3
between the parties, which can be redressed by way of civil
litigation and as such lodging of criminal complaint prima facie
appears unoccasioned and unwarranted, accordingly, all above-
named three petitioners, who are men of clean antecedent, in the
event of their arrest/surrender within a period of four weeks
from this order, are directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing
of bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand only) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
Judicial Magistrate - 1st Class, Bhojpur at Arrah/concerned court
in connection with Complaint Case No. 209(C) of 2024, subject
to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the
Cr.P.C/Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
(in short “B.N.S.S.”).
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.