Patna High Court
Suraj KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The court held that prima facie material exists connecting the petitioner to the alleged offences and therefore denied anticipatory bail.
Summary
The Patna High Court considered an application for anticipatory bail filed by Suraj Kumar, who was alleged to have threatened, extorted, and used forged documents to claim ownership of a disputed parcel of land. The prosecution alleged that Kumar, along with accomplices, stopped construction work, demanded a large sum, and threatened violence, invoking multiple offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Kumar contended that he had purchased the land through a registered sale deed and that a bona‑fide title dispute existed, asserting that the FIR contained contradictory statements. The informant countered that the sale deed was fabricated, that Kumar was part of a land‑mafia, and highlighted a prior bail denial and a bounced‑cheque complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After evaluating the material, the court found prima facie evidence linking Kumar to the offences and declined to grant anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail despite prima facie evidence of offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether the dispute over land title and alleged forgery affects the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 115(2), 126(2), 308(5), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 351(2), 352, 61(2)
- Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 138
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- land dispute
- extortion
- forged documents
- title dispute
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Negotiable Instruments Act
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79985 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-521 Year-2025 Thana- AGAMKUAN District- Patna
======================================================
Suraj Kumar S/o Late Ashok Yadav R/o Mohalla - Daud Bigha, P.S -
Agamkuan,Dist- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Hansraj, Advocate
Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. P.N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Syed Ehteshamuddin, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
5 02-04-2026 Heard Mr. Hansraj, learned Counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. P.N. Shahi, learned Senior Counsel for the
Informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail,
in connection with P.T.N. 3364 of 2025, arises out of
Agamkuan P.S. Case No. 521 of 2025 for the offence
registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 308(5), 338,
336(3), 340(2), 318(4), 352, 351(2), 61(2) of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita.
3. As per the prosecution case, when the informant
was constructing the boundary of his land bearing Khata
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79985 of 2025(5) dt.02-04-2026
2/8
No. 301, Plot No. 481, situated at Mauza-Kumhrar, the
petitioner along with four unknown persons arrived there
and stopped the construction work and abused the laborers.
When the contractor informed the informant about the
incident, thereafter, the informant arrived upon his land
along with his brother. Having seen them, the petitioner and
other accused persons started abusing him, and when he
objected, they started threatening the informant that if the
work would not be stopped, they would shoot him and they
would not refund the amount of Rs. two crores thirty lakhs
given to the petitioner by the informant. The petitioner did
not allow the informant to construct boundary upon the land
on the ground that the petitioner has got the land in question
registered in his favour. It has further been alleged that on
the basis of forged document, the petitioner is claiming the
title upon the subject land and got electric meter installed
illegally. They further demanded extortion amount from the
informant and also took rupees one lakh from the
informant’s clerk on the point of gun and further threatened
that if the work would not be stopped, they would be done
away with. They also pressurised to withdraw the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79985 of 2025(5) dt.02-04-2026
3/8
Agamkuan P.S. Case No. 837 of 2023 and Agamkuan P.S.
Case No. 424 of 2025.
4. Mr. Hansraj, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in
this case inasmuch as the petitioner has purchased the land
in question from one Kailash Sahni by way of registered
sale deed dated 05.05.2025, and he is the rightful owner of
the land in question. The copy of sale deed registered in
favour of the petitioner has been annexed at Annexure P/2
of the bail application. He further submits that there is bona
fide dispute of title between the informant and the
petitioner. The land is originally owned by one Veena Jha
who sold the same in favour of Kailash Sahni and in turn
the petitioner has purchased the land from Kailash Sahni. It
has further been submitted that the falsity of the allegation
against the petitioner is further evident from perusal of FIR
of Agamkuan P.S. Case No. 424 of 2025, in which the
informant has stated that he has entered an agreement with
Veena Jha for the land in question, while in the present FIR,
the informant claims to be the owner of the land in question,
which is contrary to each other. The petitioner has neither
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79985 of 2025(5) dt.02-04-2026
4/8
demanded any extortion from the informant nor any
extortion amount has been delivered to him. The petitioner
has installed electric meter upon the land in question on the
basis of he is being the rightful owner of the land.
5. On the other hand, Mr. P.N. Shahi, learned
Senior Counsel for the Informant vehemently opposed the
prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioner is
a land broker and land mafia and is indulged in illegal
activities in order to extort money from the rightful
purchaser of the land. Earlier the informant had contacted
the petitioner for purchase of a piece of land and the
petitioner agreed to sell the land in question situated at
Agamkuan and assured him to get the land registered in his
name through its owner, Veena Jha.
6. When the land for which the informant paid
huge amount to the petitioner was not transferred in favor of
the informant, the informant, upon inquiry, came to know
that the petitioner never contacted the rightful owner of the
land, namely, Veena Jha. In that situation, the informant
entered into registered agreement for the sale dated
15.06.2023 with Veena Jha for total consideration amount
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79985 of 2025(5) dt.02-04-2026
5/8
of Rs. 1 crore 95 lakhs. The possession of the land was
delivered to the informant by Veena Jha as per the
registered agreement for sale, and thereafter, the informant
started construction of boundary wall on the subject land,
upon which the petitioner threatened the informant with dire
consequences and demanded extortion amount based upon
the forged sale deed allegedly executed and registered by
Veena Jha in favor of one Kailash Sahni, from whom the
petitioner has purchased by way of registered sale deed
dated 05.05.2025, annexed at Annexure P/2 of the bail
application.
7. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that
when the land was not registered in favour of the informant
even after paying the amount of Rs. 2 crore 30 lakhs to the
petitioner, the informant was compelled to lodge an FIR
against the informant having Agamkuan P.S. Case No. 837
of 2023. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner
was rejected by the High Court in the aforesaid P.S. Case
No. 837 of 2023; thereafter, the petitioner moved an
application for regular bail before Patna City Court having
B.P. No. 968 of 2024. In the said regular bail application,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79985 of 2025(5) dt.02-04-2026
6/8
the petitioner agreed to refund the entire amount in favour
of the informant by way of the compromise petition filed
before the City Court, having the terms and conditions for
refund of the amount mentioned in para 3 of the
compromise petition. The petitioner failed to abide by the
terms of compromise also and and the post dated cheques
given to the informant were bounced for which the
informant filed complaint against the petitioner under
Section 138 of N.I. Act having Complaint Case No. 10854
of 2025. The bail allowed on the basis of compromise on
the promise of the petitioner that he would pay the entire
amount dated 05.12.2024 was subsequently cancelled by
the City Court on 17.01.2026.
8. Learned counsel next submits that the sale deed,
which has been produced as Annexure P/2 by the petitioner,
is also a false and fabricated document inasmuch as in
description of land the petitioner has disclosed the deed no.
1683 of 1990 of erstwhile owner Smt. Veena Jha which
during the investigation by the police has been found to be
forged and fabricated. The deed no. 1683 belongs to one
Savitri Devi, wife of Vaidhnath Singh, and is not the deed in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79985 of 2025(5) dt.02-04-2026
7/8
favour of Smt. Veena Jha. Further, the petitioner has
claimed that Veen Jha sold the land in favour of Kailash
Sahni, but no details of the sale in favour of Kailash Sahni
by the alleged Veen Jha has been mentioned in the sale
deed, including the deed number, page no., etc. Only a bald
statement has been made without any document of title
including the revenue receipt being issued in favour of
Kailash Sahni. Accordingly, the submission is that the
petitioner, on the basis of forged and fabricated document
and the fabricated sale deed, is trying to disturb the
possession of the informant on the land in question, who
has entered into registered agreement for sale with transfer
of possession with its rightful owner, Smt. Veena Jha. The
copy of the registered agreement for sale with Veena Jha
has been annexed at Annexure O.P. 2/5 to the counter
affidavit.
9. Lastly, it has been submitted that the conduct of
the petitioner, is further apparent from the fact that the wife
of the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by this Court
arising out of an FIR bearing Agamkuan PS Case No. 837
of 2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 56935 of 2025 and at the time of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79985 of 2025(5) dt.02-04-2026
8/8
surrender she was impersonated at the behest of the
petitioner for which on the direction of the concerned court,
FIR bearing Alamganj P.S. Case No. 980 of 2025 has been
lodged at Patna City against the petitioner and his wife.
10. Regards being had to submissions made by the
parties, the materials available on record in totality and the
nature of allegation made in the FIR this court finds that
there is prima facie material against the petitioner to
connect him with the present offence, I am not inclined to
grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.
11. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
Siwani/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.