Patna High Court
Arvind KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- JITENDRA KUMAR
Holding
No offence is made out under the alleged facts, and bail is granted to the petitioner.
Summary
Arvind Kumar was charged under Sections 419, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly refusing to execute a sale deed after receiving Rs 44.70 lakh from the informant for land in Bihta. The parties had a written agreement to complete the sale within nine months, but the petitioner failed to obtain mutation of the land in his name and therefore did not execute the deed, citing a rise in land price. The informant filed a criminal complaint and a civil suit for specific performance, while the petitioner argued that the dispute was purely civil, that he was ready to return the money, and that mens rea was absent. The State opposed bail, asserting that the petitioner’s conduct demonstrated criminal intent. The High Court held that no offence was made out, noting the parallel civil proceedings, and consequently granted bail subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S 2023.
Issues considered
- Whether the facts alleged constitute an offence under Sections 419, 406 and 420 IPC.
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner pending trial.
- Whether the civil dispute over the sale deed can be criminally prosecuted.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S., 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 419, 420
Subjects
- bail
- cheating
- civil dispute
- specific performance
- Indian Penal Code
- Section 419
- Section 420
- Section 406
- Section 482
- civil‑criminal jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76372 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-727 Year-2023 Thana- BIHTA District- Patna
======================================================
Arvind Kumar S/o- Late Chandrika Singh Resident of village- Neuri, PS-
Neura (OP Bihta) Dist- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Mukul Kumar S/o- Parasnath Sharma Resident of village- Neuri, PS-Neura
(OP Bihta) Dist-Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Ravish, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP
For the Informant : Dr. Anjani Pd. Singh, Advocate
Mr. Sunny Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Satakashi Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 23-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, apprehending his arrest,
in connection with Bihta P.S. Case No. 727 of 2023, dated
16.07.2023, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 419, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per allegation, the petitioner was in need of
money and willing to sell his land to the informant. Hence,
agreement for sale was executed with payment of Rs. 5,25,000/-
as earnest money. Subsequently, total Rs. 44,70,000/- including
the initial payment of Rs. 5,25,000/- has also been paid by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76372 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
2/5
informant. However, despite demand of the informant for the
last 6-8 months for registration of the sell of the land in
question, the petitioner has not executed the sale deed in favour
of the informant and he also flatly refused to do the needful.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this
case. However, the petitioner has admitted that there was
agreement of sale and Rs. 44,70,000/- was received from the
informant towards consideration amount. However, for want of
payment of total consideration amount within nine months
stipulated in the agreement for sale, the petitioner has not
executed the sale deed, because price of the land has gone up
and this is not in the interest of the petitioner to execute the sale
deed at the later stage. He also submits that suit for specific
performance has been already filed by the informant in the Civil
Court against the petitioner and the same is pending
consideration of the Court. As such, as per learned counsel for
the petitioner, the alleged facts and circumstances constitute a
dispute of civil nature and only to harass the petitioner, the
criminal color has been given to the civil dispute. He also
submits that mens rea is sine qua non for making out any prima
facie case under Sections 419 and 420 IPC and even there is no
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76372 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
3/5
application of Section 406, because the petitioner is ready to
return the whole money to the informant.
5. However, by way of reply, learned counsel for the
informant submits that nine months’ time for execution of the
sale deed was executed from the date of mutation and issuance
of a revenue receipt in the name of the petitioner, but the same
has not been done. However, the land has not been mutated in
the name of the petitioner himself before selling it. As such,
there is no lapse on the part of the informant and total
consideration amount of Rs. 44,70,000/- has been already paid.
But without any rhyme and reason, the accused-petitioner has
not executed the sale deed and hence, mens rea is apparent on
the part of the petitioner. He also submits that no reason has
been given by the petitioner for his failure to get the mutation in
his name and getting revenue receipt issued. Hence, there is no
rhyme and reason on the part of the petitioner to deny the sale
deed, because delay is on his part and this is breach of the
contract making the petitioner liable for civil and criminal
liability.
6. By way of reply, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that even if the petitioner has failed to get the mutation
of the land in his favour, there is no commission of any offence
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76372 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
4/5
of cheating or any other offence. Such facts and circumstances
only extends the time for execution of the sale deed, but no
offence would be made out.
7. It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the bail
petition that the petitioner has not moved this Court earlier
either for anticipatory bail or regular one in the instant case.
8. It has further been stated in paragraph no.3 of the
bail petition that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.
9. However, learned APP for the State also
vehemently opposes the prayer of the Petitioner for bail.
10. Considering the rival submissions of the parties
and the alleged facts and circumstances, it appears that no
offence is made out, though the time for execution of the sale
deed is getting extended and both the parties are already before
the Civil Court in regard to the same issue involved. Hence, this
petition is allowed, directing the petitioner, above-named, to be
enlarged on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before
the court below within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt / production of a copy of this order, on his furnishing
bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000 /- (Ten Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
concerned Court below, in connection with Bihta P.S. Case No.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76372 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
5/5
727 of 2023, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 482 (2) of the B.N.S.S 2023, and on the following
conditions:
(i) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court
below that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents, learned
court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner after
hearing him and getting satisfied that the petitioner has
concealed his criminal antecedents despite his knowledge of the
same.
(ii) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court
below that statement regarding previous bail petition is wrong,
learned court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Jitendra Kumar, J)
shoaib/-
U T
Checking your session…