Patna High Court
Minhaj AlamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted as the petitioner’s conduct shows an intention to cheat, justifying the criminal charges.
Summary
The petitioner, Minhaj Alam, applied for anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case registered under Sections 406, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code concerning a land transaction. The informant alleged that he paid Rs. 15.20 lakh to the petitioner and another accused, of which Rs. 11.20 lakh was documented on a non‑judicial stamp paper, but the petitioner failed to execute the sale deed and later demanded additional money, indicating an intention to cheat. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the dispute was essentially civil and that the petitioner had a clean antecedent. The informant’s counsel countered that the acceptance of money without executing the deed demonstrated a criminal intent. After considering the submissions, the court concluded that the petitioner’s conduct warranted criminal proceedings and refused to grant anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner accused of offences under IPC Sections 406, 420 and 34.
- Whether the underlying dispute is merely civil and thus does not justify criminal proceedings.
- Whether the petitioner’s acceptance of advance money without executing the sale deed indicates an intention to cheat, negating bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 406, 420
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal breach of trust
- cheating
- extortion
- civil dispute
- land transaction
- Indian Penal Code
- Criminal Procedure Code
- West Champaran
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89464 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-287 Year-2023 Thana- MUFFASIL District- West Champaran
======================================================
Minhaj Alam Son of Mohammad Sah Resident of village - Mansha Tola Ward
No.- 32, Police Station - Bettiah Muffasil, District - West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brij Kishor Mishra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shantanu Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 13-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420
and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that he intended to purchase 2 Katha 7 dhur 10 dhurki
land for which consideration was fixed at Rs. 9 Lakhs per katha,
accordingly, he paid an amount of Rs. 15,20,000/- to petitioner
and Mohammad Sah, out of which an amount of Rs. 11,20,000/-
was recorded on a non judicial stamp paper with receiving and
Rs. 4 Lakhs was paid on trust, but the accused persons including
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89464 of 2025(2) dt.13-03-2026
2/3
the petitioner did not execute the sale deed nor returned the
money, rather threatened and even demanded Rs. 20 Lakhs by
way of extortion, it is next alleged that informant came to know
that earlier petitioner in name of getting job in foreign country
has cheated many people.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant, at the outset, submits that informant has been
cheated of his hard earned money. It is next submitted that the
money which was given by way of advance to the petitioner and
Mohammad Sah was on a non judicial stamp paper with
receiving of the petitioner. It is also submitted that petitioner
despite receiving money did not execute the sale deed which
amply demonstrates that petitioner right from the beginning had
an intention to cheat.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner is not in a position to rebut the submission the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant that
petitioner had taken money by way of advance for which
receiving was given.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner next submits
that petitioner is not willing to return the money, but then the
dispute is civil in nature to which a criminal colour has been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89464 of 2025(2) dt.13-03-2026
3/3
given, on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant submits that since petitioner accepted the money in
lieu of executing the sale deed with respect to the land as
agreed, but later resiled from executing the sale deed that amply
demonstrates that petitioner right from the beginning had an
intention to cheat.
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, the Court is not
inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail
application stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…