IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41012 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1041 Year-2023 Thana- ARARIA District- Araria ======================================================

Shadabur Rahman Son of Md. Daniyal Resident of Village- Lahtora, Ward No. 4, P.S.- Araria,Distt.- Araria ... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Md. Shafaur Rahman@ Laddu Son of Nasimur Rahman Resident of Village and Post- Chandradei, Ward no. 4, P.S.- Araria, Araria ... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Helal Ahmad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, A.P.P.

For the O.P. No. 2 : None ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

6 21-01-2026 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Araria (Nagar) Police Station Case No. 1041 of 2023, disclosing offences under Sections 420, 419, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case lodged by informant Mohd. Shafaur Rahman @ Laddu that a land situated at Khata No. 292,30 having Khesra No. 3545, 3543, 3536, 3542 having total area of 4 acres and 218.6 decimal is registered in the name of the informant’s father, namely, Naseemur Rahman. On

22.03.2023, the petitioner along with other accused persons, arrived at the residence of the informant and pressurised him to sell the land. When the informant refused, the petitioner threatened, “If you don’t agree to sell the land, then you have to give an extortion amount of Rs. 25 lakh.” It has further been alleged that on 15.09.2023, when the informant went to the Zonal Office, Araria, he came to know that many persons have applied for mutation of the land in question, which was sold in their name. When the informant saw the deed no. 10747 having token no. 5432/2023 dated 20.04.2023, he came to know that it was completely forged. Upon inquiry, the informant came to know that the accused persons have committed fraud by making a forged Khatian in the name of Saidur Rahman and showing themselves as his descendants.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence in the manner alleged. The petitioner is not the vendor or the vendee in the sale deed, which was allegedly executed. The copy of which is annexed as Annexure 4 to the supplementary affidavit. The only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner asked the informant to sell their land, failing which he would have to pay a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs, but there is no allegation that 25 lakhs was paid to the petitioner by the informant. He next submits that in fact the land in question was sold in 1971 by the father of the informant in favour of some other person and a copy of the sale deed has been annexed as Annexure 2 of the supplementary affidavit. Though the purchasers of 1971 from the father of the informant have resold the land in favour of some other persons, the petitioner is neither the vendor, or vendee, nor the witness in any of the sale deeds.

5. No one appears for the opposite party no. 2.

6. Learned counsel for the State submits that there is the direct allegation against the petitioner in the FIR.

7. Regards being had to the submissions made by the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is neither the vendor nor the vendee nor the witness in the allegedly forged sale deed, I am inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.

8. This application is, accordingly, allowed.

9. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the Court below within four weeks, be released 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate,