Patna High Court
Ranjita Singh @ Ranjeeta SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Ranjita Singh, applied for anticipatory bail in a complaint (No. 9222(C) of 2023) alleging offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code relating to a fraudulent sale deed of land. The complainant claimed that the petitioner, along with co‑accused, induced her to pay Rs. 36.25 lakh for a plot, executed a sale deed without disclosing an earlier deed, and cheated her of the amount paid and construction costs. The petitioner argued that the dispute was purely civil, that she possessed a clean title, and that no criminal intent existed. The State and the complainant opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the cheating and breach of trust allegations. Considering the nature and gravity of the accusations, the court refused the anticipatory bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 of the CrPC in view of alleged offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.
- Whether the civil nature of a land sale dispute bars criminal prosecution for cheating and breach of trust.
- Whether the gravity of the alleged fraud justifies denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 420
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- cheating
- criminal breach of trust
- sale deed fraud
- land dispute
- Indian Penal Code
- civil vs criminal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81873 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9222 Year-2023 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
Ranjita Singh @ Ranjeeta Singh Wife of Late Jitesh Ranjan Singh R/o
Raghuraj Patha, Chandmari Road, Ward No. - 29, West Gali of Police Chauki,
P.O. - Lohia Nagar, P.S. - Kankarbagh, District - Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Smt. Vibha Verma Wife of Sri Sanjay Kumar Permanent Resident of Vill.-
Sikharichak, ward No.-23, P.O.- Mokama Ghat, P.S.- Mokama, District-
Patna, At present residing at Haridayal Clinic, Tarkeswar Path, Chandmari
Road, P.O.- Lohia Nagar, Kankarbagh, P.S. Kankarbagh, District- Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Digvijay Narayan Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Dr. Mrityunjaya Kr. Gautam, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 13-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, complainant
and the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends arrest in Complaint Case No.
9222(C) of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Complaint case, in brief, is that in search of land for
residential house, complainant was induced by co-accused Dipu
Prasad Yadav and Shailesh Kumar, who assured her that a plot
of land in Mauza Lohanipur, Mohalla Chandmari Road,
Kankarbagh, Patna was available and free from encumbrances.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81873 of 2025(4) dt.13-03-2026
2/3
On their assurance, complainant entered into an agreement with
this petitioner and other two other accused persons and paid a
total of Rs. 36.25 lacs, including Rs. 5 lacs as advance, by
arranging funds through a bank loan. On 7.11.2022, the accused
executed Sale Deed No. 16191 in favour of the complainant but
when she began constructing house on the said land, some
persons objected, showing an earlier Sale Deed No. 7297 dated
4.12.1979 in favour of their mother. Complainant alleges that
the accused persons fraudulently executed sale deed, without
disclosing previous sale deed, in her favour and cheated her of
Rs. 33,57,051/- along with Rs. 2 lacs spent on construction.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Petitioner
executed the registered sale deed in favour of the complainant
with good title and gave her possession over the land. She was
living in the same colony and took electricity connection on the
land in question. It is further submitted that dispute involved in
this case is with regard to sale and purchase of land which is
purely of civil nature and for the same piece of land, title suit is
also pending. Petitioner claims clean antecedent.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently
opposed the bail application and submitted that petitioner is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81873 of 2025(4) dt.13-03-2026
3/3
named in the F.I.R. with specific accusation that without
disclosing the previous sale and conveyance of the same land,
the accused persons fraudulently executed registered sale deed
in favour of the complainant.
6. Considering the nature of accusation and gravity of
the offence, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is
refused.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Navya/-
U T
Checking your session…