Patna High Court
Paras JainversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The petitioner's application for anticipatory bail is allowed.
Summary
Paras Jain applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case involving alleged forgery of a sale deed, where he is described as the identifier of the forged document. He contended that the substantive allegations pertained to co‑accused executors and beneficiaries, and that he received no consideration, arguing that the matter is essentially civil. The State and the informant opposed bail, alleging his connivance with the co‑accused. The court noted that the other similarly situated accused had already been granted anticipatory bail and, considering the circumstances, ordered that Jain be released on anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The order emphasized compliance with bail conditions and clarified that its observations would not affect the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC read with Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita despite the serious offences alleged.
- Whether the petitioner’s role as merely an identifier, without consideration, negates the grounds for denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 119(2), 308(3), 308(4), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 351(2), 61(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- forgery
- sale deed
- identifier
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- Section 438
- Section 482
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6619 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-346 Year-2025 Thana- SAMASTIPUR MUFFASIL District-
Samastipur
======================================================
Paras Jain Son of Late Nemi Chand Jain @ Late Nemi Chandr Jain Resident
of Mohalla - Thakurbari Gali, Marwari Bazar, Police Station - Samastipur
Town, District - Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mahendra Pratap, Adv.
For the Informant : Mr. Kundan Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Ms. Pushpa Sinha-1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 04-02-2026 Heard the learned counsels the parties.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Samastipur Muffasil P.S. Case No. 346 of 2025
registered for the offence(s) under Section(s) 318(4), 338,
336(3), 340(2), 351(2), 308(3), 308(4), 119(2) and 61(2) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.).
3. As per the allegation in the First Information
Report, the petitioner is said to be the identifier of a forged sale-
deed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6619 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
2/4
It has been submitted that even if the allegation is taken on its
face value, the allegation is upon co-accused persons, namely,
Suresh Prasad, Kundan Kumar and Gunjan Kumar, who were
the executors and the beneficiaries of the sale-deed. It has
further been submitted that the petitioner stood only as an
identifier and it is also not the case of the informant that he has
received any consideration amount out of the same. It has also
been submitted that this case is out an out a civil dispute, which
has given a criminal colour. It has further been submitted on
behalf of the petitioner that he carries one criminal case against
his name, bearing Samastipur Town P.S. Case No. 160 of 2022,
in which he is on bail. It has lastly been submitted that the other
similarly situated accused persons, namely, Kundan Kumar @
Kundan Kumar Rai, Suresh Prasad and Gunjan Kumar have
been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by different
Benches of this Court vide orders dated 24.12.2025, 05.01.2026
and 04.02.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. Nos. 86173/2025,
88269/2025 and 5617 of 2026 respectively.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State as well as the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant have
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner and have stated that the petitioner was in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6619 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
3/4
connivance with the other co-accused persons and hence he
cannot be absolved of the liabilities in the present case. The
learned counsel for the informant, however, does not dispute the
fact that the other similarly situated accused persons, referred to
above, have been granted anticipatory bail by different Benches
of this Court.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and the
fact that similarly situated accused persons have been granted
anticipatory bail by different Benches of this Court, let the
petitioner, above-named, be released on anticipatory bail, in the
event of his arrest or surrender before the concerned
Court/successor Court within a period of four weeks from today,
on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the concerned Court/successor Court where the
case is pending in connection with Samastipur Muffasil P.S.
Case No. 346 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
read with corresponding Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.S.) as well as subject to
the following conditions :
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6619 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
4/4
close relative and the other shall be a local resident.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present
before the concerned Court on each and every date of the
trial and shall cooperate in the investigation.
(iii) In case of absence for two consecutive occasions
or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the
petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the concerned
Court.
(iv) If the petitioner, in future, is found to be
involved in similar nature of offence(s), the prosecution
shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail
bond.
(v) The concerned Court shall verify the criminal
antecedent of the petitioner and in case, at any stage, it is
found that he has concealed his criminal antecedent, the
Court concerned shall take necessary steps for cancellation
of his bail bond. However, the acceptance of bail bond in
terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed
for purpose of or in the name of verification.
7. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
8. The application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Praveen-II/-
U T
Checking your session…