Patna High Court
Chandan Yadav @ Anurag KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- S B P SINGH
Holding
The Court rejected the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Chandan Yadav, filed an anticipatory bail application fearing arrest in a fraud case concerning the tampering of a photograph of a fake vendor, Sumit Kumar, in a sale deed registered on 19.07.2024. The prosecution alleges that Yadav, along with four others, colluded to substitute the original photograph with a fabricated one, thereby committing offences under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 61(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner contended that he is merely a deed writer (Katib) and had no role in the alleged criminal conduct, asserting that the matters are civil in nature. The State opposed bail, highlighting the FIR lodged by the District Sub‑Registrar, the alleged conspiracy among five fraudsters, and the petitioner’s prior criminal history. After considering the nature of the allegations and the petitioner’s antecedents, the Court declined to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, the application for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the alleged offences under the IPC and CrPC
- Whether the alleged acts constitute a criminal offence or a civil dispute
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 61(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- fraud
- photo tampering
- sale deed
- IPC sections
- CrPC section 61
- criminal antecedents
- civil vs criminal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89767 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-599 Year-2024 Thana- GANDHIMAIDAN District- Patna
======================================================
Chandan Yadav @ Anurag Kumar S/O Dhananjay Prasad @ Anil Kumar
Yadav R/O Village- Lalji Tola, P.S- Gandhi Maidan, Distt.- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vikash Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Raj Kishor Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 06-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned APP for the State.
2. The instant application for anticipatory
bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending
his arrest in connection with Gandhi Maidan P.S.
Case no. 599 of 2024 instituted for the offence
under Sections 318 (4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of the BNS.
3. Prosecution case in nutshell is that petitioner along
with other co-accused persons committed fraud by tampering
the photo of the fake Sumit Kumar taken at the time of the
registration of the deed in question on 19.07.2024 with the
computerized photographs of the documents registered on
19.07.2024 which were kept and uploaded in the office records.
The allegation levelled against the petitinoer is that he took
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89767 of 2025(2) dt.06-01-2026
2/3
copy of the original deed in question and whereabouts of those
who are recorded in the written complaint.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is innocent and
committed no offence. It is further submitted that
petitioner is a deed writer (Katib) and he has no concern with
the alleged offence. He further submitted that the offences are of
civil nature.
5. Learned APP appearing for the state has
vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and
submitted that in this case FIR has been lodged on the basis of
official complaint i.e. the District Sub-Registrar, Patna against
the group of fraudsters who are five in number and they
allegedly in collusion with each other in place of vendor Sumit
Kumar someone else appeared by impersonating Sumit Kumar
and registered sale deed was executed as vendor in which
vendor was shown as Sumit Kumar. Subsequently, the photo of
original Sumit Kumar was tampered in the aforesaid sale deed
and again it was scanned which was discarded by the District
Sub-Registrar, Patna. It is subsequently, alleged that the said
document was subsequently scanned and obtained by
petitioner Chandan Yadav and that is why his involvement is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89767 of 2025(2) dt.06-01-2026
3/3
apparent in this case. The case is under investigation and
petitioner has also criminal history of three cases.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for
the parties and considering the nature of allegation
and criminal antecedents, this court is not inclined to enlarge the
petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for
anticipatory bail stands rejected.
(S. B. Pd. Singh, J)
khushbu/-
U T
Checking your session…