Patna High Court
Md. Hasnain Ansari @ AlamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Given the petitioner’s clean antecedents, lack of documentary evidence and the civil nature of the dispute, the High Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482(2) CrPC to grant anticipatory bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Hasnain Ansari, sought anticipatory bail in a complaint case (No.513 of 2023) alleging offences under IPC sections 420, 406, 385, 504, 323 and 120B. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, in collusion with co‑accused, took Rs 30 lakh from the complainant for a land transaction that was never completed. The petitioner denied any receipt of money, claimed the dispute was purely civil over profit sharing in a real‑estate partnership, and highlighted the absence of documentary evidence and his clean antecedents. Mediation efforts failed, and the State and complainant opposed bail. Considering the general nature of the accusations, lack of material evidence, and the petitioner’s clean record, the Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482(2) CrPC and granted anticipatory bail with a bail bond of Rs 10,000 and two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a complaint case involving alleged offences under IPC sections 420, 406, 385, 504, 323 and 120B.
- The nature of the dispute – whether it is civil and therefore not attract criminal liability.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedents and lack of documentary evidence justify the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120, 323, 385, 406, 420, 504
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Indian Penal Code
- Section 482 CrPC
- civil dispute
- mediation
- clean antecedents
- complaint case
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86742 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-513 Year-2023 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE - SHERGHATI
District- Gaya
======================================================
Md. Hasnain Ansari @ Alam Son of Md. Abdul Rajjak Ansari Resident of
Village - Tetariya, P.S. - Imamganj, Dist. - Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Md. Majid Ansari S/o Ismaeel Miyan Resident of Village- Taitariya, Tola -
Fulaildih, P.S.- Imamganj, Dist.- Gaya
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. N. K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Rajdeep, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP
For the Complainant : Mr. Mahendra Thakur, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 28-04-2026 Heard Mr. N. K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Umeshanand Pandit,
learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. Mahendra
Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
complainant/Opposite Party No. 2.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a complaint
case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420,
406, 385, 504, 323 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Earlier, vide order dated 25.02.2026, the matter was
referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Patna High
Court. From perusal of mediator’s report dated 21.04.2026 it is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86742 of 2025(4) dt.28-04-2026
2/3
apparent that despite best efforts, the dispute between the parties
could not be resolved through the process of mediation.
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that this petitioner,
in collusion with other co-accused persons, took Rs. 30,00,000/-
from the complainant on the pretext of registering a piece of
land in his favour and later on, neither executed the sale deed
nor returned the money.
5. It is submitted by learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and
has committed no offence. As a matter of fact, this petitioner,
complainant and other co-accused person are business partners
and are into business of real estate, however, due to dispute with
regard to sharing of profits, quarrel took place between the
parties leading to lodging of the instant case. Petitioner denies
the allegations and submits that at no point of time, any money
was paid by the complainant to this petitioner. There is no chit
of paper on record to substantiate the allegations levelled
against this petitioner. Moreover, the dispute is purely civil in
nature and none of the acts allegedly committed by this
petitioner would give rise to any criminal liability. Petitioner
claims clean antecedents.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86742 of 2025(4) dt.28-04-2026
3/3
the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 have vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, general and omnibus nature of accusation, materials
available on record and clean antecedents of the petitioner, the
prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is allowed.
8. Accordingly, in the event of arrest/surrender within
a period of eight weeks from today, let the above named
petitioner be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.
10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Sherghati at Gaya in connection with Complaint Case No.
513 of 2023, subject to condition as laid down under Section
482(2) of the B.N.S.S..
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…