Patna High Court

Sunil KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 4 February 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH

Holding

Anticipatory bail was denied as the accusations were specific, direct and of a grave nature.

Summary

The petitioners, Sunil Kumar and Ganesh Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a complaint alleging they acted as middlemen in a land transaction and committed offences under Sections 406, 420, 415, 416, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant claimed she paid full consideration for land that the accused did not own, and that the petitioners forged documents and extorted money. The petitioners contended they were innocent and not the vendors. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the specific accusations and the seriousness of the alleged crimes. After considering the facts, the court found the allegations serious and specific, and consequently rejected the petition for anticipatory bail. The petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners accused of offences under IPC Sections 406, 420, 415, 416, 467 and 468.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 415, 416, 420, 467, 468

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Indian Penal Code
Section 406
Section 420
Section 415
Section 416
Section 467
Section 468
cheating
forgery
criminal breach of trust
land fraud
Patna High Court

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6162 of 2026

                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-782 Year-2023 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE - DANAPUR
                                                     District- Patna
                 ======================================================
           1.    Sunil Kumar Son of Late Upendra Yadav Resident of Village- Baigwan,
                 P.S.- Bikram, District- Patna
           2.    Ganesh Kumar son of Rajendra yadav Resident of Village- Chirayatanad,
                 (Chirantand), P.S.- Bikram, District- Patna

                                                                              ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus

           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Kiran Kumari Wife of Ramesh Chaudhary Resident of Village- Tikaitpur,
                 Ps- Bihta, Dist- patna

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioners   :       Mr. Satish Chandra, Advocate
                 For the State         :       Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   04-02-2026                  Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioners and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

                                2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a

                   complaint case registered for the offence punishable under

                   Sections 406, 420, 415, 416, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal

                   Code.

                                3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that the

                   complainant bought a piece of land from the named accused

                   persons after paying due consideration money and later on, she
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6162 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
                                            2/3




          came to know that the accused persons had no right, title or

          possession over the land in question. Thus, the accused persons,

          including these petitioners, committed forgery and extorted

          money from the complainant.

                       4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on

          behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and

          have committed no offence. Petitioners are not the vendor of the

          land in question and they have falsely been implicated in this

          case.

                       5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has

          vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to

          the petitioners and submitted that petitioners are named in the

          complaint petition and there is specific accusation that on the

          persuasion of these petitioners, who played the role of middle

          men for the sale and purchase of land, the complainant paid the

          entire consideration money and got the land executed in her

          name and later on, she came to know that the land does not

          belong to the accused persons. It is specifically alleged that

          these petitioners also received a huge amount of money and

          cheated the complainant.

                       6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

          case, specific and direct nature of accusation and gravity of
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6162 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
                                                         3/3




                       offence, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the

                       petitioners is rejected.



                                             (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…