Ramawatar Sah v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62593 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-101 Year-2024 Thana- RUDRAPUR District- Madhubani ====================================================== 1.
Ramawatar Sah S/O Late Bachhelal Sah Resident of Village- Karnpur, P.SRudrapur, Distt.- Madhubani. 2.
Bhola Sah S/O Late Bachhelal Sah Resident of Village- Karnpur, P.SRudrapur, Distt.- Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Shashank Chandra, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Vinod Shanker Modi, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 17-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners have preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Rudrapur P.S. Case No. 101 of 2024 dated 06.09.2024 giving rise to G.R. No. 1424/2024 registered for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioners and the co-accused made a false claim on the land of the informant on the basis of forged documents relating to settlement case no. 12447 of 2002 and in support of this allegation the informant claimed that he got an information under the RTI Act vide
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62593 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 2/3 application no.111 dated 08.03.2021 to this effect that the said settlement case has not been registered and on that basis the FIR has been registered.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that even though the information was allegedly received by the informant in the year 2021 but the present FIR has been instituted on 06.09.2024 without any explanation. It is further submitted that in respect of the same land, the petitioners have also instituted a title suit no. 82 of 2020 in the learned court below against the father of the informant and his other relatives, the said title suit is pending adjudication before the court below. It is further submitted that the said land being the ancestral land of the petitioners has been inherited by them.
The petitioners submits that since the cadastral khatiyan was recorded in the name of Jeevat Sah, but the land erroneously went in the Khatiyan of one Amitabh Chaudhary who is the father of the informant as such in order to rectify the said error, the petitioners instituted case no. 12247/2002 under Section 106 of the B.T. Act before the settlement officer, Madhubani. The said case came to be allowed vide decree (Annexure-P/3) dated 17.06.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62593 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 3/3 the aforesaid land was deleted from the khata of the informant's father and was further recorded in the khata of petitioner no. 1 Ramawatar Sah. The petitioners have no concern with the alleged occurrence. The co-accused person has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 12.08.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 56341 of 2025. The petitioners have clean antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioners are in custody since 29.07.2025.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the bail petition of the petitioners.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the period of custody, the petitioners above-named, are directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned court concerned, Madhubani, in connection with Rudrapur P.S. Case No. 101 of 2024.
7. The application stands allowed.
(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) Gautam/- U T