Patna High Court
Prabhat Kumar DubeyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The Court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
Petitioner Prabhat Kumar Dubey sought anticipatory bail after learning that a FIR had been lodged against him under Sections 384, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly forging a sale deed of land that was the subject of a pending probate case. The prosecution alleged that Dubey, without any right, title or possession, executed a forged deed in favour of several co‑accused, thereby cheating the complainant, who is his sister. Dubey contended that he is innocent, that the dispute is purely civil, and that any grievance regarding the sale deed should be pursued through a civil suit. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the specific and direct nature of the accusations and the existence of a pending probate proceeding. The Court examined the seriousness of the alleged offences and the risk of tampering with evidence, concluding that the allegations warranted a criminal trial. Consequently, the Court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in view of the alleged offences under Sections 384, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC.
- Whether the alleged forgery and cheating constitute a criminal matter notwithstanding the civil nature of the underlying land dispute.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 384, 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- forgery
- sale deed
- probate
- cheating
- criminal conspiracy
- civil dispute
- Indian Penal Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73573 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-61 Year-2020 Thana- KATIHAR COMPLAINT CASE District-
Katihar
======================================================
Prabhat Kumar Dubey S/o Late Shivnath Dubey @ Late Siddhnath Dubey
Resident of Village-Paharpur, P.S.-Dankhora, District- Katihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Puja Kumari D/o Late Siddhnath Dubey @ Late Shivnath Dubey Resident of
Village-Paharpur, P.S.-Dankhora, District- Katihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, Advocate
Ms. Isha Mishra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
5 22-04-2026 Heard Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Umeshanand
Pandit, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 384, 420,
467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case, which is based on a
complaint petition, in brief, is that mother of the
complainant/informant executed a registered will in favour of
the complainant with respect to a land. The complainant filed a
probate case bearing Probate Case No. 02 of 2018 and this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73573 of 2025(5) dt.22-04-2026
2/3
petitioner, who is own brother of the complainant, cheated her
and executed forged sale deed in favour of Manoj Kumar
Mandal, Chandan Kumar Sharma, Rambha Devi and Rita Devi
without having right, title or possession over the piece of land
which is subject matter of Probate Case No. 02 of 2018.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has
committed no offence. Petitioner is own brother of the
informant/complainant and due to mala fide intention, this false
F.I.R. has been lodged. Moreover, the dispute is with regard to
sale and purchase of land which is purely civil in nature and
none of the acts, allegedly committed by this petitioner would
give rise to any criminal liability. It is further submitted that if
the complainant/informant has any case against this petitioner
about execution of forged sale deed, she can challenge the same
before the competent authority by filing appropriate civil suit.
Petitioner claims clean antecedents.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner and submitted that petitioner is named in the
complaint petition and there is specific accusation that without
having any right, title or possession over the piece of land of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73573 of 2025(5) dt.22-04-2026
3/3
complainant, he executed forged sale deed in favour of other co-
accused persons. It is further submitted that petitioner has not
dispute the fact that probate case is pending with regard to the
land in question and during pendency of the same, this
petitioner executed a sale deed and thus, this petitioner has
cheated the complainant.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and specific and direct nature of accusation, the prayer for grant
of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…