Hanif Ansari v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43447 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-95 Year-2026 Thana- JOGAPATTI District- West Champaran ====================================================== Hanif Ansari S/o Tijamul Miayan Resident of Village - Rampurwa, P.S.- Yogapatti, District - West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Bimlesh Kumar Pandey,Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Ms.Madhuri Lata, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 07-07-2026 Heard Mr.Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and Ms.Madhuri Lata, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 12.05.2026 in connection with Yogapatti P.S. Case No. 95 of 2026, F.I.R. dated 11.03.2026 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(4), 338, 340(1), 340(2), 3(5) of BNS.
3. The prosecution story, in brief is that, the informant namely Nasrullah Ansari, he is permanent resident of village Rampurwa, Ward No. 14, Yogapatti, West Champaran and his residential land situated at Mouza Rampurwa, Thana No. 352, Anchal Yogapatti, District West Champaran, under Khata No.
2/6 86, Khesra No. 466, area 0-0-17% dhur, which has been peacefully possessed and occupied by him and his brothers Sarfullah and Kamrullah Ansari jointly through P.P. Settlement Case No. 02/2012-13 after due issuance and service of the settlement order. Informant further states that, a permanent house of informant and his brothers stands on the said land and portion thereof measuring 02 dhur is used as sahan (courtyard). It is further stated that the land mafia and influential persons, in a well-planned manner, under deep conspiracy and collusion among themselves, namely Mobina Khatoon, Sakina Khatoon, Samina Khatoon have got a forged sale deed No. 13980, dated 28.07.2023 executed in their favour pertaining to Khata No. 85, Khesra No. 455, area 4.50 decimals, which forms part of the land obtained by the informant through Basgit Parcha.
It is alleged that, through forgery and fraud with the help of witnesses namely Dhooda Yadav and Ramayan Yadav the offence was committed, whereas, the vendors never had possession or occupation over the land in question.
3/6 ever made. It is further stated that, there had been no talk with the witnesses Ramayan Yadav and others and Hasim Ansari and Hanif Ansari, but the aforesaid persons, by committing forgery, have manipulated the boundary descriptions and have fabricated the sale deed document dated 28.07.2023 in order to cause loss to the informant and his brothers and secure immediate gain for themselves. It is further stated that, in collusion with revenue officials, the aforesaid persons have tampered with Record Register-02 and Jamabandi No. 23 in the name of Dahari Ahir and have fraudulently incorporated the said khata, khesra and area therein, thereby committed forgery in the government records.
It is further stated that, a report to this effect was submitted by the Circle Office, Yogapatti to the Additional Collector, Bettiah, West Champaran vide Letter No. 35 dated 08.01.2026. It is further stated that, on 22.01.2026 at about 10:00 A. M., during a Panchayati, the persons named in this application produced forged documents with the intention of grabbing the informant's land covered under Basgit Parcha, whereupon, after making inquiry and verification, the informant submitted the written application.
4/6 forged sale deed dated 28.07.2023. Further, in order to strengthen their false claim, they have tampered with and manipulated Record Register-02.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. It appears from the FIR that the present FIR has been instituted on the basis of Sale Deed No.13980 Dated 28.07.2023 which was executed by Budhan Yadav, Ramayan Yadav and one Dodha Yadav in favour of Shakeena Khatoon,Mobina Khatoon and Shamina Khatoon. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no concern at all in the aforesaid and he is neither the executor nor the vendor in the present case and even he is not the witness of the sale deed in question and he has falsely been implicated in the present case and the petitioner is in custody since 12.05.2026.
5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has participated in the present crime in question and he was instrumental of the sale deed in question, apart from that, the petitioner carries eight more cases other than the present one
5/6 but fairly submits that the petitioner is on bail in all the cases, as mentioned in para-3 of the bail petition.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, let the petitioner, above named, 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 learned J.M. 1st Class, Bettiah, West Champaran in connection with Yogapatti P.S. Case No. 95 of 2026, with the 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/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his/her 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
6/6 shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Nitesh/- U T