Patna High Court
Mithlesh PanditversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The petitioners, being only witnesses and having no criminal antecedent, are entitled to anticipatory bail.
Summary
The petitioners, Mithlesh Pandit and Shashi Pratap, were implicated in a complaint (Case No. 1639/2023) alleging forgery of a land‑sale agreement and conspiracy under Sections 467 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant claimed the petitioners demanded a share of his land and fabricated an agreement to fraudulently obtain his signature. The petitioners contended they were merely witnesses to an unregistered agreement, had no criminal antecedent, and that the complaint was lodged with an unexplained delay. The court, noting the lack of any direct allegation of participation in the alleged forgery and the petitioners’ status as witnesses, granted them anticipatory bail. The bail was conditioned on a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties and subject to Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case involving alleged forgery and common intention when the accused are only witnesses to the purported agreement.
- Whether the delay between the alleged incident (28‑08‑2023) and the filing of the complaint (03‑10‑2023) warrants denial of bail.
- Whether the petitioners can be held liable under Sections 467 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Legislation cited
- BNSS, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 467
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- forgery
- land dispute
- Section 467 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 BNSS
- delay in complaint
- witnesses
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64597 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1639 Year-2023 Thana- GAYA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Gaya
======================================================
1. Mithlesh Pandit Son of Late Mohan Pandit Resident Of Village- Lakhibag,
Ps- Mufassil, Dist- Gaya
2. Shashi Pratap @ Sashi Pratap son of Sri Ram Lakhan Singh @ Ram Lakhan
sing Resident Of Village- Bhikhampur, Ps- Wazirganj, Dist- Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rajesh Kumar Verma Son of Late Rajendra Prasad Swarnkar Resident Of
Village- Manpur, Gopalganj road, Ps- Buniyadganj, Dist- Gaya
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dr. Kamal Deo Sharma
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
5 24-02-2026 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail,
arises out of Complaint Case No. 1639 of 2023, disclosing
offences under Sections 467 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 03.10.2023,
complainant had purchased 21 decimals of land at Village
Lakhanpur through a registered sale deed dated 17.02.2010, got
the land mutated in his name, and remained in peaceful
possession. It is alleged that on 28.03.2023, when the
complainant went to perform Bhumi Pujan for construction of a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64597 of 2025(5) dt.24-02-2026
2/3
house, the accused persons including the petitioners objected
and demanded “rangdari” in the form of 8 decimals of land, and
upon refusal, threatened him. It is further alleged that the
accused persons subsequently prepared a false and fabricated
agreement dated 13.09.2023 showing payment of Rs. 5,11,000/-
at a fixed rate, without mentioning the total consideration
amount, and obtained his signature fraudulently with the
intention to illegally grab or sell the land.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case
on the basis of a concocted and mala fide complaint. He next
submits that there is an unexplained delay in lodging the
complaint, as the alleged occurrence is dated 28.08.2023
whereas the complaint was instituted on 03.10.2023. He further
submits that, as per the complainant’s own averments, the
petitioners are merely witnesses to the alleged unregistered
agreement, and no specific allegation or overt act has been
attributed to them.
5. Despite service of notice, no one appeared for
the O.P. No. 2.
6. Having regard to the submissions made on
behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64597 of 2025(5) dt.24-02-2026
3/3
the petitioners are not the signatory of the agreement, they are
only witnesses to the alleged unregistered agreement and the
petitioners are having no criminal antecedent, I am inclined to
grant the petitioners privilege of anticipatory bail.
7. This application is, accordingly, allowed.
8. Let the petitioners, above named, in the event of
their arrest or surrender before the Court below within four
weeks, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Gaya, in connection with Complaint Case No. 1639 of 2023,
subject to the condition laid down under Section 438 (2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
HarshPandey/-
U T
Checking your session…