← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./37201/2025bail granted

Sikandra Ram v. The State Of Bihar

2025-07-14Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37201 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-383 Year-2024 Thana- DEHRI TOWN District- Rohtas ====================================================== Sikandra Ram S/O Ram Sagar Ram Resident of Village- Village Khapra, PSAkorhigola, District- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Chhote Lal Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 14-07-2025 Heard Mr. Chhote Lal Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shailendra Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Dehri (Town) P.S. Case No. 383 of 2024, F.I.R. dated 06.06.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. According to prosecution case, this petitioner along with other accused persons have prepared a forged sale deed by impersonating the informant's father and mutated the land in favour of the co-accused, Ajay Kumar.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in

2/4 the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offences as alleged in the F.I.R. In fact, petitioner is advocate and he has prepared the sale deed in question and he has also identified the signature of the witnesses as an advocate and he is not the beneficiary of the sale deed in question. He further submits that the co-accused, namely, Ajay Kumar who has purchased the land in question has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 11.09.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 60000 of 2024.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner carries one criminal antecedent other than the present one but fairly submits on the basis of paragraph 3 of the bail petition that the petitioner is on bail in the pending matter.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances that the petitioner is not the beneficiary of the sale deed in question and he has only prepared the sale deed which was executed in favour of the co-accused, namely, Ajay Kumar who has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the

3/4 date of receipt of the order, 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 the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dehri (Rohtas) in connection with Dehri (Town) P.S. Case No. 383 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:- i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order

4/4 shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U T