IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8233 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-218 Year-2025 Thana- SINGHWARA District- Darbhanga ======================================================

Chandar Sahni S/O Late Laxmi Sahani R/O Village - Agyaspur @ Mankauli, P.S- Singhwara, District- Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ratnakar Jha, Advocate Mr. Niraj Kumar, Advocate Ms. Madhumita Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pawan Kumar Chaurasia, APP For the Informant : Mr. Shambhu Narayan Singh, Advocate Mr. Suraj Kumar Tiwari, Advocate ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

2 17-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Singhwara P.S. Case no.218 of 2025 registered under sections 126(2), 115(2), 316(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 352 and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that the accused persons including the petitioner herein entered into an agreement for sale of an immovable property for a total consideration of Rs. 31 lakhs out of which at three different stages, the informant gave a sum of Rs. 29 lakhs to the petitioner and others with the promise that Rs. 2 lakhs would be given after mutation. The informant further states that on an application for mutation having been filed, it transpired that the land is disputed for which the litigation is pending.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. From the contents of the FIR, it would transpire that the dispute if any between the parties is purely civil in nature relating to sale and purchase of immovable property. The petitioner is in custody since 18.11.2025 and undertakes to cooperate in the investigation/trial.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P for the State and learned counsel for the informant. It is submitted by learned counsel for the informant that not only the petitioner is named in the FIR but there is specific allegation against him that the informant having given a sum of Rs. 29 lakhs against the total consideration of Rs. 31 lakhs, without disclosing about the pending litigation with respect to the subject matter/land in question, the informant was cheated by the petitioner executing the sale deed with respect to a disputed property. It is thus submitted that the application for bail be rejected.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the nature of allegation against the petitioner in the FIR together with the petitioner having remained in custody since 18.11.2025, the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in connection with Singhwara P.S. Case no.218 of 2025 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-

VII, Darbhanga.

(Partha Sarthy, J)

Shiv/-

U T