Patna High Court
Abhishek KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court granted regular bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, a developer, was charged under IPC sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 for allegedly forging a share‑division deed related to a land development agreement. The original agreement required completion of construction within two and a half years, after which the landlord cancelled the deed and built on the land, while the petitioner sold two flats. The petitioner claimed innocence, asserting that a later deed dated 06‑11‑2021 legitimately transferred ownership of the flats to him, whereas the landlord alleged the deed was forged and a civil suit is pending. The court observed that the authenticity of the deed is a civil matter that has not yet been adjudicated, and that the petitioner had been in custody for about six months. Consequently, the court ordered his release on regular bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, subject to cooperation with the trial and the pending civil suit being expedited.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite allegations of forgery under IPC sections 467, 468 and 471.
- Whether a civil dispute over the genuineness of a deed can be decided by the criminal court for the purpose of bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- bail
- forgery
- criminal breach of trust
- IPC
- civil dispute
- share‑division deed
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68830 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-223 Year-2025 Thana- DANAPUR District- Patna
======================================================
Abhishek Kumar S/o Chandrika Prasad @ Chandrika Singh Resident of Flat
no. 408, Amrapali Green Halvasiya Apartment, Sector-3, Vrindavan Yojna,
P.S.- P.G.I., District- Lucknow, State- Uttar Pradesh, at present resident of
Ground Floor, Asmi Realtors, Near R.P.S. Law College, P.S.- Danapur,
District- Patna, State- Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Subodh Kumar S/o- Late Devendra Rai, R/O- Saguna, P.S.- Danapur, Dist.-
Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kamlesh Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rajiv Nayan
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR
PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
5 04-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well
as learned APP for the State.
2. In this case, the petitioner is seeking regular bail
in connection with Danapur P.S. Case No. 223 of 2025,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420,
467, 468, 471 of the IPC.
3. The informant is landlord and the petitioner is
the developer. There was an agreement between the informant
and the petitioner that the petitioner would develop apartment
on the land, measuring two and a half kathas, belonging to the
informant. That deed of agreement was executed on 10.04.2013.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68830 of 2025(5) dt.04-02-2026
2/3
According to the FIR, there was a condition in the development
agreement that if the construction was not completed within a
period of two and a half years, the deed would become
inoperative. It has further been mentioned in the FIR that the
petitioner (developer) failed to complete the construction within
the stipulated period, and thereafter the informant, by a
cancellation deed dated 20.08.2016, cancelled the previous deed
of agreement. After cancellation of the agreement, the informant
constructed an apartment on the said land, but the petitioner sold
two flats.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been
implicated. The deed of agreement of share division was entered
into between the informant and the petitioner on 06.11.2021 and
according to that deed, the flats sold by the petitioner fell into
his share. He is the owner of those flats which he had sold.
5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State
and the learned counsel for the informant have opposed the
prayer for bail by submitting that the petitioner committed
forgery and prepared a forged deed, which is a share-division
agreement alleged to have been entered into between the
petitioner and the informant in the year 2021. It has also been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68830 of 2025(5) dt.04-02-2026
3/3
submitted that a civil suit is pending.
6. The genuineness of the deed of 2021 is disputed by
the informant, whereas according to the petitioner, it is a
genuine deed. Except civil court of competent jurisdiction, no
one can decide whether the deed is genuine or forged. There is
no adjudication by the civil court till date on this point. The
matter appears to be purely civil in nature. The petitioner has
been under custody for near about six months.
7. Considering the above-mentioned facts and
circumstances, let the petitioner above-named be released on
bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Danapur in connection with
Danapur P.S. Case No. 223 of 2025, subject to the condition that
the petitioner shall cooperate in the disposal of trial and make
himself available as and when required by the court.
8. The civil court, where the matter is pending, is
expected to expedite the case.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)
kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…