Sarvesh Kumar @ Vikki Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28853 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1901 Year-2022 Thana- GAYA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictGaya ====================================================== Sarvesh Kumar @ Vikki Yadav S/o Animesh Kumar R/o Mohalla- Vishnu Bihar, Bhusunda, P.S.- Muffasil, Distt.- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Bihar 2.

Joyti Singh W/o Harishankar Singh @ Mantu Singh R/o Mohalla- Manpur, Bhusunda, Near Bank of Baroda, P.S.- Muffasil, Distt.- Gaya ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Priya Ranjan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Sharma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 15-10-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for the complainant.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 1901 of 2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 34 of IPC.

3. The complainant makes allegation that she purchased the plot in question in the year 2006. The petitioner, on the basis of forged and fabricated agreement to sale, alleged to be executed between the complainant and the petitioner, filed a suit for specific performance i.e. Title Suit No. 67 of 2015.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated. The petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance against the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28853 of 2025(7) dt.15-10-2025 2/2 complainant and the complainant has filed her written statement in that suit. The matter is sub judice before the civil court for determination of the fact whether the agreement to sale is genuine or not.

5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail.

6. The civil court is yet to decide the genuineness of deed of alleged agreement to sale. Unless it is declared by the civil court as forged and fabricated, no presumption can be drawn that it is forged and fabricated.

7. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, in the event of his arrest or surrender within four weeks before the learned court below, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-cum-Civil Judge (Junior Division XX), Gaya in connection with Complaint Case No. 1901 of 2022, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) kundan/- U T