Sanjeev Kumar Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45082 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-894 Year-2022 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE - ROSERA District- Samastipur ====================================================== Sanjeev Kumar Rai Son of Late Brij Kishore Rai Resident of Village Mahraur ,PS Rosera , District Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Bihar 2.

Hare Ram Jha Son of Late Babu Saheb Jha R/o Vill- Mustaffapur, Ward no.- 5,P.S- Bibhutipur, Distt.- Samastipur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Abhoy Kumar Kashyap For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sucheta Yadav ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 27-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complain Case C.R. No. 894 of 2022, registered for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the IPC.

3. The complainant, Hare Ram Jha, filed the case stating that his family had 61 bighas of land and he had received 1 bigha 2 katha 4 dhur through partition suit no. 178 of 1970, but the petitioner along with accused persons conspired and committed forgery by replacing the name of the real co-sharer, Rajeshwar Prasad Singh, with Sri Niwas Das. On the basis of this forged document, they illegally purchased his share through a sale deed dated 22.05.2001, in which Sanjeev Kumar Rai (the petitioner) and Binod Kumar were witnesses.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45082 of 2025(5) dt.27-11-2025 2/2 that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated. Ram Maya Devi is a bona fide purchaser of the land in dispute. She purchased the land in the year 2001, and Jamabandi was created in her favor. The petitioner was only an identifier of the sale deed whereby Maya Devi purchased that land. Except the fact that he is an identifier, there is nothing against the petitioner. It has also been submitted that a number of civil litigations are pending between the parties.

5. It appears to be a case of civil nature. The status of the petitioner is only that of an identifier. He is not a party to the transaction.

6. 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 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Rosera, Samastipur in connection with Complain Case C.R. No. 894 of 2022, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) kundan/- U T