IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48834 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-173 Year-2025 Thana- DALSINGHSARAI District- Samastipur ====================================================== 1. Ramdayal Mahto @ Ramdayalu Mahto son of Late Mishri Mahto R/o- Kamrawan PS- Dalsingsarai samastipur, Bihar 2. Kumud Kumar son of Ramdayal Mahto @ Ramdayalu Mahto R/o- Kamrawan PS- Dalsingsarai samastipur, Bihar 3. Sunil Kumar Mahto Son of Ramdayal Mahto @ Ramdayalu Mahto R/o- Kamrawan PS- Dalsingsarai samastipur, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rounak Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pawan Kumar Chaurasia ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 2 12-08-2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Dalsingsarai Police Station Case No. 5133005250173 of 2025, dated 15.05.2025, disclosing offences under Sections 338/ 336(3)/ 340(2)/ 319(2)/ 318(4)/ 111/352/351(2)/3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita. 3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that the petitioners have purchased a piece of land situated at Karaon, bearing Khata No. 777 and new Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48834 of 2025(2) dt.12-08-2025 2/5 Khesra No. 1624, admeasuring 50 decimals of land by way of registered sale deed on 20.01.2025, for a total consideration amount of Rs. 37,50,000/-. It has further been alleged that vendor of the petitioners has sold the share of the informant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are bonafide purchasers of the piece of land for value and they have falsely been implicated in this present case by lodging belated First Information Report inasmuch as sale deed was executed on 20.01.2025 and the FIR has been lodged on 15.05.2025. He next submits that in the jamabandi register the vendor of the petitioners is one of the co-sharer and the petitioners, at best, have purchased the undivided share in the property. He further submits that allegation made in the FIR gives rise to civil dispute, but the same been given the colour of criminal case. 5. Learned counsel relies upon a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 393 of 2024 (Jit Vinayak Arolkar v. State of Goa and Ors.). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph-12 of the aforesaid judgment has taken note of its earlier judgment, Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48834 of 2025(2) dt.12-08-2025 3/5 reported in 2009 (8) SCC 751, passed in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, in which it has been held that when a sale deed is executed conveying a property claiming ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser under such sale deed to allege that the vendor has cheated him by making a false representation of ownership and fraudulently induced him to part with sale consideration. But in this case the complaint is not by the purchaser. On the other hand, the purchaser is made a co-accused. In Paragraph-23, the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim (supra) has said that when we say that execution of a sale deed by a person, purporting to convey a property which is not his, as his property, is not making a false document and therefore not forgery, we should not be understood as holding that such an act can never be a criminal offence. If a person sells a property knowing that it does not belong to him, and thereby defrauds the person who purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is, the purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent act of cheating. But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint. He further Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48834 of 2025(2) dt.12-08-2025 4/5 submits that the petitioners are purchasers from the original owner of the property, who may be a joint-owner having share in the property with others. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioners are land mafias and the petitioners, in connivance with the vendor, have purchased the property belonging to the informant, which was allotted in his favour by way of partition of joint family property. He next submits that the informant has also filed a title suit, bearing Title Suit No. 65 of 2025, for declaration of title over the property and for declaration that the sale deed, dated 20.01.2025, executed in favour of the petitioners is null and void. 7. Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration nature of allegation and the fact that the petitioners are purchasers and they are not claiming that they have been defrauded by their vendor, I am inclined to grant the petitioners privilege of anticipatory bail. 8. This application is, accordingly, allowed. 9. Let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48834 of 2025(2) dt.12-08-2025 5/5 arrest or surrender before the Court below within four weeks, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate I, Dalsingsarai, Samastipur, in connection with Dalsingsarai Police Station Case No. 5133005250173 of 2025, subject to the condition laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ashwani/- (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) U T