Md. Naoman @ Md. Nauman v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64775 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1511 Year-2022 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Araria ====================================================== MD. NAOMAN @ MD. NAUMAN S/o- Md. Minnatullah @ Mohammad Minnatulla R/o- Kharsahi Po- Gidwas Kharsahi Ps- Raniganj Dist- Araria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Rafat Jahan W/o- Aftab Alam R/o- Belwa Millat Nagar, W.No-2, Ps- Araria Dist- Araria ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Md. Naushaduzzoha, Advocate For the State :

Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP For the Complainant :

Md. Ziaul Quamar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 21-04-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a complaint case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that this petitioner, along with co-accused Mahmud Alam, cheated informant of Rs. 16,00,000/- by executing a sale deed for a land

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64775 of 2025(6) dt.21-04-2026 2/3 without having any right, title or possession over the same and when the complainant demanded her money back, the accused persons refused to return the same.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. The dispute is with regard to sale and purchase of land, which is purely civil in nature. Petitioner claims clean antecedents.

5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and submitted that petitioner is named in the complaint petition with specific accusation that he, along with co-accused person, took Rs. 16,00,000/- from the complainant as consideration money and thereafter, executed a sale deed on the basis of forged and fabricated document for a land over which the petitioner has no right, title or possession. Thereafter, when the complainant demanded her money back, this petitioner refused to return the same.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, specific and direct nature of accusation and gravity of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64775 of 2025(6) dt.21-04-2026 3/3 offence, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) shashank/- U T