Gopal Tiwari v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70461 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-111 Year-2015 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE - BIKRAMGANJ District- Rohtas ====================================================== Gopal Tiwari S/o Late Gupteshwar Tiwari R/o Village- Vjoysiljst. Chitokhar, P.S.- Nasriganj, District- Rohtas, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Binod Prasad S/o Late Dev Sah R/o Village- Hariharganj, P.S.- Nasriganj, District- Rohtas ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Piyush Tiwari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mrs. Meena Singh, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 08-10-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends arrest in case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 420, 467, 468, 471, 474/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. It is alleged that this petitioner and his wife registered their land in the name of complainant and his wife for Rs. 6,08,000/-. On 22.08.2013, an agreement was prepared between the parties on two non-judicial stamps of Rs. 50/- in which it was decided that complainant would give up his claim on 0.02 1⁄2 decimal land and in return, this petitioner would register 0.31 1⁄4 decimal land in the name of the son of complainant. This petitioner, allegedly, kept the agreement with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70461 of 2025(2) dt.08-10-2025 2/2 himself and thereafter added a new statement in the black space mentioning that entire money has been returned to him, so that the complainant does not have any claim. Taking advantage of the fake agreement, co-accused Lalit Mohan Gupta is now trying to recover Rs. 8.39 lacs from the complainant.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that from bare perusal of the impugned order it is apparent that complaint case was lodged in the year 2015 and cognizance was taken on 29.06.2015. Instant anticipatory bail application has been filed in the year 2025 i.e., after lapse of 10 years and there is no plausible explanation as to why petitioner has moved before this Court after such long time. It appears that petitioner does not have any apprehension of arrest.
5. Considering the delay and conduct of the petitioner, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is refused. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Navya/- U T