SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 3789

PATNA HIGH COURT
Prabhat Kumar Singh, J
Niranjan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69439 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Ajay Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr. Abhay Kumar, APP

Anticipatory bail granted based on the petitioner’s status as a mere witness and claimed innocence.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 338, 339, 340(2), 344, 61(2), 308(5), 3(5) of the B.N.S. Facts of the Case: The petitioner is accused of complicity in a sale deed allegedly executed with forged documents, despite being a mere witness to the transaction.

Findings of Court:
The court allowed the bail considering the petitioner's claimed innocence and clean antecedents.

Issues: The main question is whether the petitioner deserves anticipatory bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that as a mere witness and with no benefit from the transaction, the claim for bail is justified.

Result: The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is allowed.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER

3 05-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 338, 339, 340(2), 344, 61(2), 308(5), 3(5) of the B.N.S.

3. The allegation in the FIR is that a forged document was created by the co-accused Nirmala Devi and her daugther in connivance with co-accused, Dr. Mritunjay Kumar, executed a sale deed in relation to the said land in favour of co-accused, Chandan Kumar.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. Petitioner is alleged to be only witness of the sale deed. They are not the beneficiaries of the alleged transactions. Title Suit No. 366/2024 is also pending against the co-accused Chandan Kumar and others. Similarly situated co- accused persons have been granted privilege of anticipatory bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 19.12.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 88979 of 2025. Petitioner claims clean antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that petitioner is only witnesses of the sale deed and the petitioner claims clean antecedent, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is allowed.

7. 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur in connection with Samastipur (Town) P.S. Case No. 215 of 2024, subject to condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S. S..

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top