Rahbar Abdin v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7856 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-813 Year-2025 Thana- PIRBAHOR District- Patna ====================================================== Rahbar Abdin S/o- Sarwar Abdin R/v- Pushpanjali Complex Boring Road, PsS.K Puri Dist- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Sr.Adv.
Mr. Aakash Singh, Adv.
Mr. Vipin Kr. Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, Adv.
For the Informant :
Mr. Avinash Kr. Singh, Adv.
Mr. Mukul Kr. Singh, Adv.
Mr. Kr. Bal Govind Singh, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER 07-07-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and apprehending his arrest in connection with Pirbahore P.S. Case No. 813 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 336(2), 338, 318(4), 308(3), 318(3), 3(5) BNS.
3. The allegation against petitioner is to cheat informant by creating forge documents qua sale of shop no. 71 and 72 of Meena Bazar market, Muradpur, Patna. It is alleged that the false signature of the informant was created over "agreement to sale" and also on document for "absolute
2/5 sale deed".
4. It is submitted by Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that facial perusal of FIR categorically suggest that dispute is primarily civil in nature. It is submitted that the agreement to sale/ absolute sale deed dated 18.03.2025 were signed between the mother of the petitioner namely, Renuka Kumari Sinha and the informant. It is pointed out that the mother of the petitioner was main accused in this case and she was granted anticipatory bail by ld. Trial court itself by ABP No. 4467 of 2025 dated 27.01.2026.
5. Arguing further, Mr. Singh submitted that in aforesaid fact the implication of petitioner with present crime in question is only with harassing approach, where this petitioner appears implicated only being the son of the coaccused, who executed the agreement of sale/ absolute sale deed namely, Renuka Kumari Sinha. It is also submitted that only for the reason that this petitioner found involved in twelve more criminal cases of similar nature, his prayer of anticipatory bail was declined by the ld. Trial court. In this
3/5 connection Mr. Singh submitted that petitioner is a business man and running a chain of school and also other business activities related with land deals, and therefore, maximum cases are arising out of land dispute, where case and counter case were filed. It is submitted that in all such criminal cases petitioner is on bail.
6. Mr. Singh further submitted that if merit of this case otherwise appears in favor of the petitioner, merely on the ground of criminal antecedents ordinarily his prayer of bail should not be declined, and in support of his submission, Mr. Singh relied upon the legal report of Hon'ble Supreme Court as available through Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. reported in (2020) 11 SCC 648.
7. Learned APP duly assisted by Mr. Avanish Kr. Singh learned counsel for the informant while opposing the prayer of bail submitted that this petitioner being son of the accused namely Renuka Kumari Sinha was instrumental behind entire issue and as the family of informant is suffering from congenital eye issue, taking advantage of that this petitioner who is land grabbing person approached
4/5 informant with assurance that he will sort out the issue of tenancy dispute with shopkeeper of Meena Bazar and obtained signature of informant. It is submitted that market value of one shop of Meena Bazar is Rs. 90 lakh as on date, therefore, agreement of sale/ absolute sale deed against the total consideration amount of Rs. 9 lakh not appears convincing. It is submitted that the agreement were intentionally executed through mother.
8. Arguing further, it is submitted by learned counsel that recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined a prayer of anticipatory bail of appellant, who was involved in 22 more criminal cases, and in support of his submission he relied upon the legal report of Hon'ble Supreme Court as available through Sharad Sehgal vs. State of U.P. and Anr. reported in 2026 SCC OnLine 740, whereas he could not disputed the factual submission that agreement of sale / absolute sale deed was executed between the mother of this petitioner and informant.
9. In view of aforesaid factual submission and by taking note of fact as the dispute between the parties
5/5 primarily appears civil in nature, where agreement of sale/ absolute sale deed was signed between the informant and mother of this petitioner, who has already granted anticipatory bail by ld. Trial court, accordingly petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks, is directed to be released on bail, furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Patna /concerned Court, where the case is pending in connection with Pirbahore P.S. Case No. 813 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS. (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J) Sudha/- U T