Patna High Court
Sanjiv Kumar Singh @ Sanjeev Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail on furnishing the prescribed bond and sureties.
Summary
The petitioner, Sanjiv Kumar Singh, was charged under several sections of the B.N.S., 2023 for allegedly forging his father‑in‑law's signature and photograph on sale deeds and participating in a criminal conspiracy to transfer property. He applied for bail, claiming innocence, lack of criminal antecedent, and that the documents used were genuine, with the sale deed executed by the complainant's husband. The State opposed bail, but the court noted that the allegations were general, other co‑accused had already been granted bail, and the petitioner had been in custody since 20‑09‑2025. Considering these factors, the court decided to enlarge bail, directing the petitioner to furnish a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties. Consequently, the petitioner was released on bail pending trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite charges under sections 318(4), 308(6), 322, 115(2), 452, 126(2), 74 and 352 of the B.N.S., 2023
- Whether the nature of the allegations and the petitioner’s lack of prior criminal record justify granting bail
Legislation cited
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 115(2), 126(2), 308(6), 318(4), 322, 352, 452, 74
Subjects
- bail
- forgery
- sale deed
- criminal conspiracy
- impersonation
- property transfer
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83206 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-615 Year-2025 Thana- SASARAM NAGAR District- Rohtas
======================================================
Sanjiv Kumar Singh @ Sanjeev Kumar Singh Son of Lakshman Prasad
Chaudhary @ Lakshman Prasad Resident of Village - Patelpuri, P.S.- Nokha,
District - Rohtas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kumari Baby Kumari W/O- Nandlal Singh, R/O- village-Dhusiya Kala, P.S-
Bikramganj, dist-Rohtas
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amar Prakash, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Matloob Rab, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 05-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection
with Sasaram(T) P.S. Case No. 615 of 2025 registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 308(6), 322, 115(2),
452, 126(2), 74, 352 of the B.N.S., 2023.
3. The case of the prosecution based on the complaint
petition, in short is that the husband of the complainant has
registered a power of attorney in favor of the complainant and
transferred his paternal property situated at Dhusiya Kala and
Puranderpur P.S. Bikramganj in her favor. It is further alleged
that the petitioner, in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83206 of 2025(3) dt.05-02-2026
2/3
other accused persons named in the complaint petition, has
forged the signature and photograph of the husband of the
complainant on two sale deeds and by impersonating her
husband, got those sale deeds executed.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has
committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this
case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in
this case, the nature of the allegation is general and omnibus,
and from perusal of para nos. 64 and 65 of the case diary, it is
clear that the documents that were used by the alleged accused
persons for impersonating the husband of the complainant are of
her husband. Para-64 & 65 clearly show that no imposture was
there and that the sale deed was executed by the husband of the
complainant. He also submits that similarly situated other co-
accused namely, Bablu Kumar has already been granted bail by
this court vide order dated 73901 of 2025. He further submits
that a statement has been made in para 3 of the petition that
petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is languishing in
judicial custody since 20.09.2025.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP
for the State.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83206 of 2025(3) dt.05-02-2026
3/3
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named
petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with
Sasaram(T) P.S. Case No. 615 of 2025.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-
U T
Checking your session…