Patna High Court
Ramjivan @ Ramjivan Kumar @ Ramjivan Kumar PaswanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted because the petitioner is a bona‑fide purchaser and similarly situated co‑accused have been released on bail, and there was no sufficient ground to deny bail under the applicable provisions.
Summary
Ramjivan Kumar Paswan applied for anticipatory bail in a case (PS‑346/2025) alleging his involvement in forging a sale deed for a piece of land. He claimed to be a bona‑fide purchaser and argued that the forged deed, if proven, made him a victim rather than a perpetrator. The State and the informant opposed the bail, contending that he conspired with co‑accused to falsify the deed. The court noted that other co‑accused had already been granted anticipatory bail by different benches and that the petitioner’s claim of legitimate purchase warranted relief. Accordingly, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S., ordering a bail bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties and imposing compliance requirements.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in view of the alleged forgery and his claim of being a bona‑fide purchaser.
- Whether the grant of anticipatory bail to similarly situated co‑accused influences the decision on the petitioner's 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
- forged sale deed
- land dispute
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 B.N.S.S.
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6624 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-346 Year-2025 Thana- SAMASTIPUR MUFFASIL District-
Samastipur
======================================================
Ramjivan @ Ramjivan Kumar @ Ramjivan Kumar Paswan Son of Late Rajo
Paswan Resident of Village- Sitalpatti P.S. - Muffasil District - Samastipur
Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Akash Shankar, Adv.
Mr. Raj Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Archana Kushwaha, Adv.
Ms. Nausheen Fatima, 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. The allegation against the petitioner is that he is the
purchaser of the land and in connivance with the executor of the
sale-deed, namely, Suresh Prasad, has got a forged sale-deed in
his favour.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6624 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
2/4
4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner
that he has falsely been implicated in this case and he is the
bona fide purchaser of the land in question and if the said sale-
deed is indeed found to be forged, then the petitioner himself is
the victim of such crime. It has further been submitted that even
the chain of title over the land in question is complete and in
fact the executor of the sale-deed, namely, Suresh Prasad has got
a valid title of the land after the same was earlier sold by the
father of the informant. It has further been submitted on behalf
of the petitioner that he carries one criminal case against his
name, bearing Mufassil P.S. Case No. 259 of 2018. 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.6624 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. He also submits that the petitioner and others had
forged the sale-deed by changing the boundary (Chauhaddi) of
the land, which is said to have been executed.
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6624 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
4/4
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
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…