Patna High Court

MD. NAOMAN @ MD. NAUMANversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 21 April 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH

Holding

Anticipatory bail was denied to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Md. Naoman, was named in a complaint alleging that he, together with a co‑accused, cheated a woman of Rs 16,00,000 by executing a forged sale deed for land over which he had no title, thereby constituting offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner applied for anticipatory bail, claiming the matter was a civil dispute over land sale and that he had a clean record. The State and the complainant opposed the bail, emphasizing the specific and serious nature of the allegations. The Court examined the gravity of the cheating and criminal breach of trust charges and the direct accusation against the petitioner. Considering these factors, the Court rejected the petitioner's request for anticipatory bail.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to a person accused of cheating and criminal breach of trust under Sections 420 and 406 IPC in a complaint case.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 420

Subjects

anticipatory bail
cheating
fraud
IPC 420
IPC 406
criminal breach of trust
civil dispute
complaint case

Judgment

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                             CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64775 of 2025

                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1511 Year-2022 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Araria
                 ======================================================
                 MD. NAOMAN @ MD. NAUMAN S/o- Md. Minnatullah @ Mohammad
                 Minnatulla R/o- Kharsahi Po- Gidwas Kharsahi Ps- Raniganj Dist- Araria

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus

           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Rafat Jahan W/o- Aftab Alam R/o- Belwa Millat Nagar, W.No-2, Ps- Araria
                 Dist- Araria

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner      :       Md. Naushaduzzoha, Advocate
                 For the State           :       Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP
                 For the Complainant     :       Md. Ziaul Quamar, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

6   21-04-2026                 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioner, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and

                   learned       counsel        appearing         on      behalf       of       the

                   complainant/Opposite Party No. 2.

                               2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a complaint

                   case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420

                   and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

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

                   petitioner, along with co-accused Mahmud Alam, cheated

                   informant of Rs. 16,00,000/- by executing a sale deed for a land
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64775 of 2025(6) dt.21-04-2026
                                            2/3




          without having any right, title or possession over the same and

          when the complainant demanded her money back, the accused

          persons refused to return the same.

                       4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on

          behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has

          committed no offence. The dispute is with regard to sale and

          purchase of land, which is purely civil in nature. Petitioner

          claims clean antecedents.

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

          learned counsel for the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 have

          vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to

          the petitioner and submitted that petitioner is named in the

          complaint petition with specific accusation that he, along with

          co-accused person, took Rs. 16,00,000/- from the complainant

          as consideration money and thereafter, executed a sale deed on

          the basis of forged and fabricated document for a land over

          which the petitioner has no right, title or possession. Thereafter,

          when the complainant demanded her money back, this petitioner

          refused to return the same.

                       6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

          case, specific and direct nature of accusation and gravity of
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64775 of 2025(6) dt.21-04-2026
                                                         3/3




                       offence, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner

                       is rejected.



                                             (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…