Patna High Court
Shiv Shankar Chaudhary @ Shiv ShankarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied to petitioner 1 but granted to petitioners 2 and 3.
Summary
The petitioners – Shiv Shankar Chaudhary, his wife Sunita and daughter Rinku – sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a property‑related case (Pupri P.S. Case No. 248 of 2024) filed under IPC sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 34. The prosecution alleged that Shiv Shankar, who claimed ownership of the land, transferred it to his wife and daughter to defeat the informant’s legal rights, constituting cheating and forgery. The State and the informant opposed the bail, arguing that the transfer was fraudulent. The Patna High Court denied anticipatory bail to Shiv Shankar, directing him to surrender within four weeks and apply for regular bail, while granting anticipatory bail to his wife and daughter with a bail bond of Rs 10,000 and two sureties each, subject to conditions under Cr.P.C. 438(2) and B.N.S.S. 482(2). The order was partially allowed, reflecting a differentiated approach based on the alleged role of each petitioner.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioner 1 (Shiv Shankar Chaudhary) in a case involving alleged criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery and common intention under IPC sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 34.
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioners 2 and 3 (Sunita and Rinku Chaudhary) who are women and alleged co‑accused in the same case.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 406, 420, 467, 468
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal breach of trust
- cheating
- forgery
- IPC
- Criminal Procedure Code
- high court
- property dispute
- women
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74219 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-248 Year-2024 Thana- PUPRI District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
1. Shiv Shankar Chaudhary @ Shiv Shankar S/O Ram Ashish @ Ram Ashish
Chaudhary R/O Village- Madhuban Gote (Wrngly Mentioned in I.O as
Bajpattigot), P.S- Bajpatti, Distt.- Sitamarhi.
2. Rinku @ Riku @ Rinki D/O Shiv Shankar Chaudhary @ Shiv Shankar,
W/O Munna Jeshwal R/O Village- Madhuban Gote (Wrngly Mentioned in
I.O as Bajpattigot), P.S- Bajpatti, Distt.- Sitamarhi.
3. Sunita W/O Shiv Shankar Chaudhary @ Shiv Shankar R/O Village-
Madhuban Gote (Wrngly Mentioned in I.O as Bajpattigot), P.S- Bajpatti,
Distt.- Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uday Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Ashok Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection
with Pupri P.S. Case No. 248 of 2024 instituted under Sections
406, 420, 467, 468 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per prosecution case, the petitioner no. 1 is
the husband of petitioner no. 3 and the father of the petitioner
no. 2 and he is alleged is have transferred land in favour of
petitioner nos. 2 and 3 over which he has not title to defeat the
legal rights of the informant.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74219 of 2024(4) dt.09-02-2026
2/3
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has
vehemently argued and submitted that petitioner no.1 is the
owner of the transferred property and petitioner no. 2 and 3 are
his daughter and wife, he has transferred the same in their
favour.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State and learned
counsel for the informant oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail
of the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Jha, the learned counsel for the
informant has submitted that there was no need of transferring
the land in favour of the wife and the daughter by the petitioner
no. 1 if the petitioner no. 1 had title over the same. He has
cheated the informant.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the
petitioner no. 1.
7. The petitioner no. 1 is directed to surrender in the
court below within a period of four weeks from today and seek
regular bail, if so advised, failing which the Superintendent of
Police, Sitamarhi will take all steps for the arrest of the
petitioners.
8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi through FAX for its
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74219 of 2024(4) dt.09-02-2026
3/3
compliance forthwith.
9. So far as petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, they
are women and considering the fact that the main thrust of
allegation is against petitioner no. 1, the prayer for anticipatory
bail is allowed with regard to petitioner nos. 2 and 3.
10. Let the petitioner nos. 2 and 3, above named, in
the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below
within a period of six weeks from today, be released on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) each
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pupri at Sitamarhi,
in connection with Pupri P.S. Case No. 248 of 2024, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C/
Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S.
11. Accordingly, this application stands partly
allowed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
vashudha/-
U T
Checking your session…