Patna High Court
Sunil KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner subject to bail bond conditions and the proviso that the informant may seek its cancellation upon proof of sale deed execution.
Summary
The petitioner, Sunil Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a FIR alleging fraud and other offences under Sections 316(2), 336(3), 338, 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bihar Negotiable Sale Act, 2023, relating to a disputed land sale. He claimed to have a clean record and asserted that the informant’s claim of a sale deed execution was false, stating that the deed had not been executed because the full consideration had not been paid. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the allegations. The Court, after hearing both sides, granted anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner furnish a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and remain subject to Section 482(2) of the Bihar Negotiable Sale Act. The Court also allowed the informant to move for cancellation of the bail if documentary proof of the sale deed’s execution is produced.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the provisions of the Bihar Negotiable Sale Act and the Criminal Procedure Code.
- Whether the petitioner poses a risk of fleeing, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses in the pending case.
- Whether the informant’s allegations of a completed sale deed constitute sufficient ground to deny anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- land sale dispute
- false implication
- Section 482
- Bihar Negotiable Sale Act
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4609 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-115 Year-2024 Thana- TISIAUTA District- Vaishali
======================================================
Sunil Kumar S/O Late Shivjee Chaudhari R/o Vill.- Shahpur, P.S.- Tisiauta,
Distt- Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Shobha Devi W/O Sri Krishna Ray R/O Balgovindpur @ Rohua, P.S.-
Jandaha, Dist.- Vaishali.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amresh Kumar Sinha, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Madhuri Lata, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 17-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State. No one appears on behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 316(2),
336(3), 338, 318(4), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that an agreement for purchasing 11.75 decimal of land
was entered in between her and the petitioner for a consideration
of Rs.26 lacs and an amount of Rs.20 lacs was paid to the
petitioner, further an amount of Rs.1, 49, 050/- was also paid at
the time of registration, but petitioner talked to his brother on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4609 of 2026(2) dt.17-03-2026
2/3
mobile and thereafter fled without executing the sale deed and
on the same day executed sale deed with regard to the land in
question in favour of his Bhabhi, but did not return the amount.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that specific pleading has been
made at Para-9 of the anticipatory bail application that petitioner
has not executed any sale deed in favour of any till date and still
ready to execute the sale deed provided the informant is ready to
make the full and final payment as agreed. It is further
submitted that the consideration fixed for the land was Rs.26
lacs and the informant only paid an amount of Rs.20 lacs as
such rest amount of Rs.6 lacs was still to be paid but then the
said amount was not paid as such the sale deed was not
executed. It is asserted and submitted that if it is found
subsequently that petitioner had executed sale deed with respect
to the land pertaining to Khata No.531, Khesra No.1171, Area
11.75 decimal in favour of anyone including his Bhabhi, in that
event, his anticipatory bail shall be liable to be cancelled.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4609 of 2026(2) dt.17-03-2026
3/3
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks
from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial
court where the case is pending/successor court in connection
with Tisiauta P.S. Case No.115 of 2024, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) B.N.S.S.
7. However, informant would be at liberty to file an
application seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted
to the petitioner provided any documentary evidence is brought
on record to show that sale deed with respect to the land in
dispute in the FIR has been executed by the petitioner.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…