Patna High Court
Madan Singh @ Madan Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Holding
The court held that the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail subject to the conditions imposed under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Summary
The petitioners, Madan Singh and his wife Vinay Devi, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case alleging land fraud involving a forged deed of gift executed after the death of the informant’s husband. The informant’s second wife, Suga Devi, filed the complaint alleging that the petitioners and others fraudulently grabbed land purchased in 1963. The petitioners argued they have no criminal antecedent, that similar co‑accused have already been granted anticipatory bail, and they are willing to cooperate with the investigation. The State opposed the bail, while the second wife also opposed. Considering the clean record of the petitioners, the nature of the allegations, and the precedent of bail to co‑accused, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita despite serious allegations under IPC sections 323, 341, 420, 419, 467, 471 and 120‑B.
- Whether the petitioners’ clean antecedent and the grant of anticipatory bail to similarly situated co‑accused justify the relief.
- Whether the alleged forged deed and land‑grabbing allegations constitute a ground to deny anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- land fraud
- forged deed
- Indian Penal Code
- Section 482
- clean antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4460 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3293 Year-2023 Thana- SARAN COMPLAINT CASE District-
Saran
======================================================
1. Madan Singh @ Madan Kumar Singh Son of Late Kishundev Singh
Resident of village- Gavandi, P.S.- Taraiya, District- Saran currently residing
at - Shivanand Nagar, Sector1,W.R.S. Colony, Raipur 492008
2. Vinay Devi Singh @ Vinay Devi Wife of Madan Singh @ Madan Kr. Singh
Resident of village- Gavandi, P.S.- Taraiya, District- Saran currently residing
at - Shivanand Nagar, Sector1,W.R.S. Colony, Raipur 492008
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Suga Devi Wife of Late Kishundev Singh Resident of Village- Gavandi,
P.S.- Taraiya, Distt.-Saran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.K. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Basant Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Vishesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shantanu Kumar, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Ravi Shanker Pankaj, Advocate
Mr. Krishna Kumar Yadav, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 09-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered under Sections 323, 341, 420, 419, 467, 471 and 120-
B of the Indian Penal Code.
3. It is alleged that the husband of the informant had
purchased a piece of land in the year 1963, which has
fraudulently been grabbed by the accused persons, including the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4460 of 2026(3) dt.09-04-2026
2/3
petitioner, on the basis of a forged deed of gift, allegedly
executed by the husband of the informant on 14.07.1997 in
favour of the accused persons, though the husband of the
informant died on 27.06.1997.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the
present case. O.P. No. 2 is the second wife of the deceased and
she has filed the present case against the children of first wife of
the deceased. Further submission is that O.P. No. 2 had filed an
application for family pension and in serial no. 4 of the said
application, the O.P. No. 2 has mentioned the date of death of
her husband as 17.08.1997. A report of Circle Officer, Taraiya,
based on the death certificate no. 101617, dated 31.08.1997,
also shows that the date of death of the husband of the O.P. No.
2 was 17.08.1997 (Annexure-3). He lastly submits that similarly
situated co-accused persons, namely, Maya Devi, Prabhunath
Rai and Tejnarayan Singh have already been granted
anticipatory bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 25.03.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 12701 of 2026 .
Petitioners have no criminal antecedent. They undertake to
cooperate in the investigation and trial.
5. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4460 of 2026(3) dt.09-04-2026
3/3
and learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 opposed the bail
application.
6. Having considered the facts and circumstances
of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties,
nature of allegation, similarly situated co-accused persons have
been granted anticipatory bail and clean antecedent of the
petitioners, let the above named petitioners be released on bail,
in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned court below
within a period of six weeks from today, on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Saran at Chapra in
connection with Complaint Case No. 3293 of 2023, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
utkarsh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.