Mahendra Purvey @ Mahendra PurveversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5686 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-179 Year-2013 Thana- DUMRA District- Sitamarhi
                 ======================================================
                 Mahendra Purvey @ Mahendra Purve, S/o Late Saryug Purvey, Resident of
                 Village- Barharwa, P.S.- Dumra, District- Sitamarhi

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Hans Lal Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   29-04-2026                    Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   A.P.P. for the State.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case

                   registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467,

                   468, 471, 474 of the IPC.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant

                   alleges that 3 acre 27 decimal of land at village Manpur was

                   recorded in the name of his father Sita Saran Rai in the Revenue

                   Survey Record, further, 1 acre 1314 decimal land was allotted to

                   Satyanarayan Prasad Yadav, elder brother of the informant and 1

                   acre land was allotted to his father Sita Saran Rai and 1 acre

                   1314 decimal land was allotted to the informant, in family

                   partition. It is next submitted alleged that after the death of his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5686 of 2026(5686) dt.29-04-2026
                                            2/4




          father in 1990, 1 acre land was divided equally between

          informant and his elder brother Satyanarayan Prasad Yadav i.e.

          50 decimal each, the informant from his share sold 61 decimal

          to Ram Mangal Singh on 03.05.2006, thus remained in

          possession of 1 acre 2.5 decimal land. It is next alleged that

          Sunita Devi executed sale deed dated 26.03.2013 in favour of

          Upendra Rai, further Rafique, Fakir, Mahendra, Badri and

          Purushottam were witnesses, identifiers and deed writers and

          assisted in preparing forged document regarding land of

          petitioner and even applied for mutation.

                      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

          allegations as alleged in the FIR it would manifest that the

          dispute is purely civil to which a criminal colour has been given.

          It is next submitted that even presuming what has been alleged

          is true without admitting that Sunita executed sale deed with

          respect to the land of the petitioner in favour of Upendra Rai, in

          that case, the informant ought to have approached the court of

          the competent civil jurisdiction for getting the sale deed

          cancelled on the ground that the same was forged and

          fabricated. It is also submitted that petitioner is a deed writer
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5686 of 2026(5686) dt.29-04-2026
                                            3/4




          and he wrote the deed on instruction of Sunita in favour of

          Upendra Rai, after perusing the documents, it is further

          submitted that police after threadbare investigation came to a

          considered conclusion that petitioner is innocent thus submitted

          final form exonerating the petitioner all the allegations as

          alleged in the FIR, but, then the learned Magistrate in a

          mechanical manner differing with the police report took

          cognizance and, thereafter, summons, bailable warrants, non-

          bailable warrants were issued. It is further submitted that

          specific pleading has been made at para 16 and 17 of the

          anticipatory bail application that the learned Magistrate even

          without waiting for the service report in haste was issuing

          bailable warrant and non-bailable warrant and thereafter, issued

          process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that in

          support of the said submission the order sheet of the learned

          trial court has been annexed and from perusal of the same it

          would manifest that the same does not even remotely suggest

          that the Magistrate issued process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. after

          being satisfied with regard to the service report of the non-

          bailable warrant. It is next submitted that when process under

          Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued the police started knocking the

          doors of the petitioner when petitioner came to know that
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5686 of 2026(5686) dt.29-04-2026
                                                        4/4




                      cognizance has been taken. It is fairly submitted that once

                      process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued, anticipatory bail

                      becomes difficult but then it is also submitted that facts of the

                      case also requires to be appreciated and in the present case the

                      dispute is civil in nature and police has submitted final form and

                      petitioner never received any summons, bailable warrants, non-

                      bailable warrants nor there is any service report on record.

                                  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

                      counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, let 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.5,000/- (Rupees Five 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 Dumra P.S. Case No. 179 of 2013,

                      subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of

                      the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.


                                                (Satyavrat Verma, J)
khushbu/-

U      T