Patna High Court
Sanjay KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court held that the alleged discrepancies in the land documents did not constitute material suppression of facts and therefore the anticipatory bail order should not be cancelled.
Summary
The petitioner, Sanjay Kumar, alleged that he had legally purchased a plot of land and that the opposite parties, Gopal Prasad Roy and Amit Kumar, were fraudulently selling portions of the same property using forged documents and threatening him. A criminal case was filed under several IPC sections (447, 448, 506, 467, 468, 420, 471/34). The opposite parties had earlier been granted anticipatory bail in Cr. Misc. No. 57707/2024, which the petitioner sought to cancel on the ground that material facts concerning mutation, title suit and partition deeds were suppressed. The court examined whether the alleged discrepancies in land documents amounted to material suppression sufficient to vitiate the bail order and considered the civil nature of the underlying dispute. It held that the inconsistencies did not constitute material suppression and that bail should not be cancelled merely on civil disputes. Consequently, the application for cancellation of anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether alleged suppression of material facts regarding land mutation, title suit and partition deed warrants cancellation of anticipatory bail
- Whether civil disputes over property ownership can be a ground for revoking anticipatory bail
- Whether the inconsistencies in documentary evidence amount to fraud sufficient to vitiate the bail order
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 420, 447, 448, 467, 468, 471/34, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- cancellation of bail
- property dispute
- forgery
- material fact
- suppression of facts
- civil remedy
- IPC sections
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.63878 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-28 Year-2022 Thana- KHAJEKALA District- Patna
======================================================
Sanjay Kumar S/o- Late Lala Prasad Yadav Mohalla - Gurhatta, P.S.-
Khajekala, District – Patna. ... ... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Gopal Prasad Roy S/o- Late Munnu Prasad Yadav R/o- Rai Jai Krishna
Road, Gurhatta Ps- Khajekala Dist- Patna
3. Amit Kumar S/o- Gopal Prasad Roy R/o- Rai Jai Krishna Road, Gurhatta
Ps- Khajekala Dist- Patna
... ... Opposite Parties.
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Advocate
Ms. Sheshadri Kumari, Advocate
Mr. Shashank Kashyap, Advocate
For the O.P. No.2 and 3 : Mr. Sumit Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Hash Kaushal, Advocate
Mr. Aman Raj, Advocate
Ms. Abhilasha Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Gulnar Begum, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
9 03-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 and learned APP for
the State.
2. This application has been preferred on behalf of the
petitioner for cancelling/recalling the order dated 16.06.2025
passed by this Court in Cr. Misc. No.57707 of 2024, granting
anticipatory bail to the opposite party nos.2 and 3.
3. The brief facts of the case, as borne out from the
written report submitted by the petitioner before the S.H.O. of
Khajekala Police Station, inter alia, is that the petitioner had
purchased a plot, bearing Municipal Survey Plot No.1380, Seat
No.201, Ward No.23/28, present Ward No.60, Circle No.121,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63878 of 2025(9) dt.03-04-2026
2/8
Holding No.5/1/A, 5/1/C, having its area 20 kathas, in his name,
in the name of his wife and in the name of his sister-in-law
(Bhabhi) through a registered sale deed and came in possession
thereof. It is further alleged that one Gopal Prasad Rai (opposite
party no.2), in connivance with land Mafiya and antisocial
elements, was selling out the part of the disputed land by creating
forged documents to different persons and have also broken the
lock of the room of the caretaker and put in possession of one
Paramanand Pashi. The petitioner was also threatened of dire
consequences on objection being raised by him.
In the last part of the written report, there is general and
omnibus allegation against opposite party nos. 2 and 3 of trying
to alienate the plots of land belonging in the share of the
informant/petitioner.
4. On the basis of the said written report Khajekala P.S. Case
No. 28 of 2022 was instituted under Sections 447, 448, 506, 467,
468, 420, 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. At the very outset, Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey, learned
counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the informant
received the notice in the bail application bearing Cr. Misc. No.
57707 of 2024 during the summer vacation and the court was to
reopen on 16.06.2025 and the opening day itself i.e. on
16.06.2025 the said case was listed and the opposite party no. 2
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63878 of 2025(9) dt.03-04-2026
3/8
(petitioner herein) could not file the Vakalatnama and as such,
was unable to appear in the said case. Cr. Misc. 57077 of 2024
was thus, disposed of on 16.06.2025 itself granting the privilege
of anticipatory bail to the present opposite parties nos. 2 and 3,
noting in the said order that despite issuance of notice, opposite
party no. 2 (petitioner herein) had not appeared. The present
petitioner thus did not get an opportunity to bring the correct
facts before the court in the earlier proceeding of anticipatory
bail.
6. Learned counsel submits that the opposite party nos. 2
and 3, by suppressing the material facts, got an order in their
favour which requires reconsideration and should be recalled. It
has been submitted that the suppression of facts has been made
with respect to Mutation Case, Tile Suit and the Partition related
documents, which are vital and material in nature. With regard to
Mutation Case, it has been pointed out that the opposite party
nos. 2 and 3, in their bail application have contended that the
land in question has been mutated in the name of their father, but
the real fact is that such mutation was done earlier by
misrepresenting before the concerned authority and the order
dated 11.09.2021 in the Mutation Case No. 13830/ 2021-22
passed by the Circle Officer was dismissed by the Court of the
D.C.L.R., Patna City in Mutation Appeal No. 169/ 2023-24 vide
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63878 of 2025(9) dt.03-04-2026
4/8
order dated 03.01.2024. The appeal was thus allowed in favour of
the present petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
contended that so far as the second ground relating to Title Suit
bearing T.S. No. 423 of 1989 is concerned, the impression given
at the time of argument on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 3,
is that the name of the informant (petitioner herein) did not find
place in the plaint although the fact is that the document itself
would show that the informant’s name was added on the said
plaint which is Annexure-9 to the supplementary affidavit filed
by the petitioner.
8. Further contention of the petitioner with regard to the
partition document (Annexure-6 to the present application)
brought on record by the opposite parties is that the said partition
deed does not bear the signature of either of the parties, rather
only the signature of the panchas appear on the said document.
This fact was also not placed before the Court at the time of
hearing of the bail application, as such no authenticity can be
attached to the so-called partition deed.
9. On the basis of the above grounds of suppression of
material facts, it has been submitted that the order of bail granted
in favour of the opposite party nos.2 and 3 requires
reconsideration and the anticipatory bail granted to them is fit to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63878 of 2025(9) dt.03-04-2026
5/8
be cancelled.
10. Per contra, Mr. Sumit Kumar Singh, learned counsel
appearing for the opposite party nos.2 and 3, has raised a
preliminary objection that the present petitioner had opportunity
to appear during the bail hearing, as notice was issued to him on
22.03.2025 in Cr. Misc. No.57707 of 2024, fixing the next date
of hearing on 16.06.2025. Despite the said opportunity, the
petitioner failed to appear before the Court on the said date
resorting to lame excuse of not being able to mark the list as it
was opening day of the Court after Summer Vacation. The order
of the Court dated 16.06.2025 clearly notes in para-3 that
“Despite issuance of notice O.P. No.2 has not appeared in the
present proceeding.” The present cancellation application should
not be entertained on this score itself that the petitioner had
shown negligence and laches in ensuring a timely legal
representation.
11. It is further submitted that the ground of suppression
of material facts taken on behalf of the petitioner is not correct
and, as a matter of fact, the opposite parties did not suppress any
fact from the Court.
12. With regard to the mutation case, it has been
submitted that the order passed by the D.C.L.R. is not a judicial
finding of title or fraud and the entries made therein do not confer
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63878 of 2025(9) dt.03-04-2026
6/8
or take away the title, as is settled law. Moreover, the said order
of the D.C.L.R. was made the subject matter of challenge in
Mutation Revision No.1 of 2024.
13. It has next been submitted with reference to the Title
Suit No.423 of 1989, that it is an old document with the entry
made on the third page of the said plaint and the existence of this
litigation is an indicator of the fact that the issue of title is
disputed and is pending for final adjudication, as such the dispute
between the parties is purely civil in nature.
14. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submits with
regard to the petitioner’s contention relating to genuineness of
the partition deed that the document records a family settlement
of the year 1984 and the petitioner’s submission that the said
partition deed lacked the necessary signatures and did not include
the disputed plots has been responded to by the counsel for the
opposite party nos. 2 and 3 by submitting that the genuineness of
the deed entails questions of complex documentary proof and
interpretation to be done by the civil court of competent
jurisdiction and hence, the contention of the prosecution is
irrelevant to the question of bail cancellation.
15. This Court upon consideration of the rival contentions
of the parties, comes to a considered conclusion that the
contesting parties are co-sharers of the property in question and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63878 of 2025(9) dt.03-04-2026
7/8
the FIR indicates allegation of sale made by the opposite party
nos. 2 and 3, of plots falling in the share of the petitioner on the
basis of some forged documents. It is also a fact that with regard
to the dispute between the parties, civil remedies are available
and have already been resorted to. Further allegation in the FIR
is in the nature of anticipation that the opposite parties would
cause threat and damage to the safety of the petitioner and his
family members.
16. It is thus concluded that even if there exists some
discrepancies with regard to the land related documents, the same
do not tantamount to suppression of such vital facts which can be
equated to playing fraud with the court and which would be
sufficient to vitiate the order granting anticipatory bail to the
opposite party nos. 2 and 3. It is settled by various
pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court that the meaning and
scope of the expression ‘material fact’ and the effect of
‘suppression’ of the same would be that whether the same was
material for grant or denial of the relief in question.
17. One has to be mindful of the fact that the present
application is one of cancellation of bail, the parameters of
which, as settled by way of several judicial pronouncements, are
distinct from that of grant of bail. It is equally settled that bail
once granted, ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63878 of 2025(9) dt.03-04-2026
8/8
However, an unreasoned or perverse order of bail is always
subject to assessment and interference by a superior court. So far
as other grounds of any supervening misconduct of the accused
or emergence of some very cogent or overwhelming
circumstances necessary to cancel the bail earlier granted, have
not been urged or agitated.
18. In the background of the law relating to cancellation
of bail, which is not lightly or mechanically to be resorted to, the
order dated 16.06.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 57707 of 2024
granting anticipatory bail to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3,
having been passed upon consideration of the civil nature of
dispute between the family members, does not warrant any
interference. The present application for cancellation of bail is
not fit to be sustained and is thus hereby dismissed.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Trivedi/-
U T
Checking your session…