Patna High Court
Sunita DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The court granted bail, holding that the matter is essentially civil and the Supreme Court precedent permits such relief.
Summary
Sunita Devi sought bail fearing arrest in a complaint (Case No. 455 of 2024) alleging cheating under IPC Section 420 concerning a land transaction. The complainant claimed she sold him a plot which she had already sold to a third party, leading to a dispute over mutation of the land. The petitioner argued the matter is essentially civil, that the complainant should approach a civil court, and relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Md. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar. The State and informant opposed bail, asserting prima facie evidence of cheating. The Court, noting the civil nature of the dispute and the precedent, granted bail subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in a case alleging cheating under IPC Section 420 when the dispute is primarily civil in nature
- Whether Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, permits the court to intervene and grant bail
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 420
Subjects
- bail
- cheating
- IPC 420
- civil dispute
- Section 482
- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita
- land sale
- mutation
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71218 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-455 Year-2024 Thana- BHAGALPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Sunita Devi W/o Mahendra Prasad Singh @ Mahendra Mandal R/o -
Tahwalpur, P.S - Lodipur, District – Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Satyanaran Mandal S/o Late Atraj Mandal R/o Mohalla - Basantpur, P.S -
Lodipur, District - Bhagalpur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Harsh Singh, Adv.
For the State : Mr.Shailendra Kumar, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Dhananjay Kr. Gupa, Adv.
Mr. Bishwa Nath Mahto, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 11-02-2026 Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as the learned
Advocate for the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in connection
with Complaint Case No. 455 of 2024, wherein cognizance has
been taken for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. Based upon the complaint case, it is alleged that the
complainant had purchased a piece of land on 19.02.2022
bearing khata No. 109, khesara No. 205 and measuring an area
of 0.414 decimal of land. However, when the complainant went
for mutation of the aforesaid land, the same came to be rejected
and later on he came to know that the land in question had
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71218 of 2025(4) dt.11-02-2026
2/3
already been sold by the petitioner to a third party and when the
complainant demanded refund of consideration amount of Rs.
2,86,000/- , she allegedly refused.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that
so far the land appertaining to khata No. 109, khesara No. 205
is concerned, the same is a big chunk of land from which
various plots have been sold through various registered sale
deeds in favour of other purchasers. In fact, after execution of
the sale deed in favour of the complainant, when he went for
mutation of the land, it has been rejected only on account of the
fact that there was a dispute between two parties on account of a
way. At no point of time, it has come that the identical piece of
land has been sold in favour of a third party and if the
complainant is not satisfied, he has remedy to approach before
the competent Civil Court; however instead of approaching the
Civil Court, the present complaint case came to be instituted.
Reliance has also been placed on a decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Md. Ibrahim & Ors vs State Of
Bihar & Anr [(2009) 8 SCC 751].
5. On the other hand, learned Advocates for the State and
the informant vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted
that, prima facie, it appears that the petitioner has sold the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71218 of 2025(4) dt.11-02-2026
3/3
land on consideration amount of Rs. 2,86,000/- to the petitioner
which had already been sold and given to a third party on
19.08.2021 itself.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by
the learned Advocates for the respective parties and taking note
of the nature of the dispute which predominantly appears to be
civil, besides the mandate of the Apex Court in the case of Md.
Ibrahim (supra), let the petitioner abovenamed be released on
bail, in the event of her arrest or surrender before the court
below within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order, upon furnishing bail
bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount, each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Bhagalpur in connection with
Complaint Case No. 455 of 2024, subject to the conditions laid
down in Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, with the further condition that one of the bailors
shall be the own/close family members of the petitioner.
(Harish Kumar, J)
Anjani/-
U T
Checking your session…