Patna High Court
Abdullah Rahman @ SarikversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail, finding the petitioner not to be a clean‑handed applicant.
Summary
Abdullah Rahman sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case alleging cheating, forgery and fraud under IPC sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 34. The FIR alleged that Rahman sold land to the informant, received a Rs 60 lakh cheque and executed a sale deed for land that allegedly did not belong to him, leading to the informant stopping payment. Rahman contended that no cheque was presented, the sale deed was never executed, and that he was falsely implicated, also pointing out that the alleged land‑broker transactions were mutual. The State argued that the allegations showed an intent to cheat and highlighted Rahman’s concealment of a prior criminal antecedent, noting two earlier cases (Bahadurpur P.S. Case No. 461 of 2017 and Sakri P.S. Case No. 138 of 2017). The court held that Rahman had not approached the court with clean hands, having concealed his antecedent, and therefore denied anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite allegations of cheating, forgery and fraud under IPC sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 34.
- Whether concealment of prior criminal antecedents defeats the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of no cheque and no sale deed creates reasonable doubt sufficient to justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 406, 420, 467, 468
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- cheating
- forgery
- Indian Penal Code
- Section 438 CrPC
- criminal antecedent
- clean hands doctrine
- sale deed fraud
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54264 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-334 Year-2020 Thana- BAHADURPUR District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Abdullah Rahman @ Sarik Son of Md. Sadre Alam R/o Village - Kila Larui
PS - Chandpura (Barat OP) Dist - Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Akhilesh Kumar S/o Sri Krisna Yadav R/o Village Mahrajee Navtoli P.S.
Sadar Distt. Darbhanga.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Baidyanath Prasad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar Roy, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420,
467 and 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case and the informant alleges
that Md. Rizwan and Md. Naz came to his shop and purchased a
tractor on credit for an amount of Rs.46,68,715/- with an
assurance to pay the amount within one month but the same was
not paid within the time agreed, hence, the informant went to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54264 of 2025(4) dt.09-02-2026
2/6
the house of the accused persons where petitioner was present
along with other accused persons. Further, they offered the
informant to purchase a land and showed an agreement paper
executed by Ajay and Abhay in favour of the petitioner and
further offered that if he purchases the property, the amount of
tractor shall be adjusted in the price, the land was offered at the
price of Rs.24,50,000/- per Katha, thereafter, the informant paid
an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner who gave the
money to Ajay. It is next alleged that thereafter an agreement for
sale was executed in between the petitioner and the informant
for 2 Kathas of land over which Md. Rizwan signed as a
witness. Thereafter, on 12.04.2017, the informant again paid an
amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner and thereafter paid
different amounts to the petitioner and Md. Rizwan, as such, in
all paid an amount of Rs.32,60,000/- after adjusting the price of
the tractor. It is further alleged that thereafter the petitioner
offered the informant to purchase 4 Kathas of land for which he
gave a cheque of Rs.60,00,000/- and a registered sale deed was
executed, thereafter, it is alleged that he came to know that the
sale deed has been executed with regard to a land which does
not belong to the accused persons, hence, asked the bank to stop
the payment of the cheque.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54264 of 2025(4) dt.09-02-2026
3/6
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that in sum
and substance, the allegation against the petitioner is that
petitioner offered him to purchase 4 Kathas of land for which
the informant gave a cheque of Rs.60,00,000/- in lieu whereof a
registered sale deed was executed and later the informant came
to know the sale deed has been executed with regard to a land
which does not belong to the accused persons including the
petitioner, hence, asked the bank to stop the payment of the
cheque. It is next submitted that since no cheque was given to
the petitioner for an amount of Rs.60,00,000/-, as such, no
cheque either was presented by the petitioner for encashment. It
is also submitted that as far as payment of the tractor and 2
Kathas of land is alleged in the FIR with respect to the same
there is no dispute and apart from the said amount, an amount of
Rs.4,20,000/- was credited in the account of the petitioner with
regard to 4 Kathas of land for which informant alleges that a
sale deed was executed but then it is submitted that informant
and the petitioner along with other accused persons are land
brokers and they work in tandem and it was in the said context
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54264 of 2025(4) dt.09-02-2026
4/6
that an amount of Rs.4,20,000/- was credited in the account of
the petitioner and it was not in lieu of any land which is being
alleged that petitioner had offered to sell for an amount of
Rs.60,00,000/-. It is further submitted that the amount of
Rs.4,20,000/- is alleged to have been credited in the account of
the petitioner in the year 2017 but three years thereafter the
instant case came to be instituted. It is next submitted that no
registered sale deed along with the FIR was brought on record.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant opposed the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant submits that no doubt, the sale deed has
not been brought on record but then a specific allegation is
alleged in the FIR that a sale deed was executed by the
petitioner in favour of the informant in lieu whereof a cheque of
Rs.60,00,000/- was given apart from the aforesaid amount but
then there is no pleading in the anticipatory bail application
denying that no sale deed was ever executed by the petitioner in
favour of the informant which amply demonstrates that
petitioner with an intent to cheat had committed the occurrence.
It is further submitted that petitioner has not approached the
Court with clean hands as in the anticipatory bail application, it
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54264 of 2025(4) dt.09-02-2026
5/6
is pleaded that petitioner has antecedent of one case when
petitioner has antecedent of two cases which includes
Bahadurpur P.S. Case No. 461 of 2017 in which the petitioner
had moved before this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing
Cr. Misc. No. 33288 of 2018 and the same came to be rejected
by an order dated 04.07.2018 by the then learned Coordinate
Bench of this Court. It is, thus, submitted that the instant
anticipatory bail application was filed after the order dated
04.07.2018 but concealing the said antecedent the anticipatory
bail application has been filed stating that petitioner has
antecedent of one case with respect to Sakri P.S. Case No. 138
of 2017 only.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant and after perusing
the order dated 04.07.2018 in Cr. Misc. No. 33288 of 2018, it
manifests that petitioner has not approached the Court with
clean hands when at para 3 of the anticipatory bail application
criminal antecedent is to be pleaded, as such, the Court is not
inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner in connection with Bahadurpur P.S. Case No. 334 of
2020 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st
Class, Darbhanga/Successor Court.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54264 of 2025(4) dt.09-02-2026
6/6
7. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…