Patna High Court
Dwarika MishraversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The court held that the dispute is primarily civil and granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Summary
The petitioners, four brothers, were named in an FIR for alleged forgery of a sale deed, extortion and other offences under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code. They contended that the matter was essentially a civil land dispute, as the land belonged to their grandfather, and that the alleged ransom demand was unsubstantiated. The informant, who claimed ownership of the land, filed the FIR fifty days after the alleged incident. The State opposed anticipatory bail, while the informant’s counsel also opposed it, asserting a property right. The court examined the nature of the dispute and the delay in filing the FIR, and concluded that the case was primarily civil. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail to all four petitioners, subject to a bond and sureties, invoking Sections 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- The nature of the dispute: civil property matter versus criminal offence
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under the listed IPC sections
- The adequacy of the FIR filing delay as a factor for bail
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2), 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 384, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- civil dispute
- property dispute
- forgery
- Indian Penal Code
- Criminal Procedure Code
- land sale deed
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74011 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-393 Year-2024 Thana- MOTIHARI TOWN District- East
Champaran
======================================================
1. Dwarika Mishra
2. Jitendra Mishra
3. Shrikant Mishra
4. Sanjay Mishra
All are sons of Ramashray Mishra, R/o Village- Koluharwa, P.S. - Motihari
Town, District -East champaran
... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prateek Tandon, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Samir Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
4 04-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State duly assisted by
learned counsel appearing for the informant.
2. The accused/petitioners are named in the FIR and
apprehending their arrest in connection with Town P.S. Case
No.393 of 2024 registered under Sections 341, 323, 384,
504, 506, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. As per FIR, the petitioners alleged to sell the land
of informant by creating a forged documents through sale deed
No.2719/24 executed by petitioner no.3, Srikant Mishra. The
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74011 of 2024(4) dt.04-02-2026
2/3
allegation of asking ransom of Rs.2 crore is also available
against co-accused Mukesh Yadav.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for
petitioners that primarily the dispute appears civil in nature. It
is submitted that the land in issue was in the name of
grandfather of all petitioners namely, Ayodhya Mishra. It is
submitted that the allegation is specific against petitioner no.3
Srikant Mishra to execute the sale deed, whereas petitioner
no.1, 2 and 4 are brother of petitioner no.3. It is submitted
that just to aggravate the allegation, the allegation of
demanding ransom of Rs.2 crore was raised against co-
accused Mukesh Yadav, where admittedly, no amount was paid
in furtherance of said demand of ransom. It is also pointed out
that Sale Deed No.2719 of 2024 still not challenged by
informant.
5. Arguing further, it is submitted that the alleged
occurrence took place on 18.05.2024 but the FIR in issue was
lodged on 08.07.2024 i.e. almost after fifty days without just
explanation. It is submitted that petitioner nos. 1,2 and 3 are
men of clean antecedent, whereas petitioner no.4 found
involved in one more criminal case of petty nature, where he is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74011 of 2024(4) dt.04-02-2026
3/3
on bail.
6. Learned APP opposed the prayer of bail.
7. Mr. Samir Kumar, learned counsel appearing for
the informant while opposing the prayer of anticipatory bail
submitted that the informant claimed his right on property,
which was purchased by his grandfather in the year 1907.
8. Let it be so, considering the submissions of both
parties, it appears that primarily the dispute is of civil in
nature, accordingly, all four petitioners, above-named, are
directed to be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or
surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks, on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)
each with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned C.J.M. Motihari, East Champaran in
connection with Town P.S. Case No.393 of 2024, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the
CrPC/under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…