Patna High Court
CR. MISC./52562/2026 of Brajesh Nandan Singh @ Brijesh Nandan Singh Vs The State of Bihar on 13 August 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52562 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-296 Year-2023 Thana- BALIYA District- Begusarai ====================================================== Brajesh Nandan Singh @ Brijesh Nandan Singh S/O late Babu Harinandan Singhh @ Late Harinandan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52562 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-296 Year-2023 Thana- BALIYA District- Begusarai ======================================================
Brajesh Nandan Singh @ Brijesh Nandan Singh S/O late Babu Harinandan Singhh @ Late Harinandan Singh R/V- Belan Bazar, PS- Kasimpur, Distt- Munger
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s
:
Mr. Sandip Kumar Gautam
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Dr.Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
13-08-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384, 448 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is a senior citizen aged about 71 years. It is next submitted that informant alleges that the petitioner sold his immovable property by executing sale deed in favour of the purchaser.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant, it is next submitted that petitioner is a senior citizen Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52562 of 2026(2) dt.13-08-2026
and has remained a person with clean antecedent all throughout and based on the instant FIR, he has been made an accused. It is also submitted that the land belongs to the petitioner and thus he sold the land in favour of the purchaser. It is also submitted that dispute is civil to which a criminal colour has been given and if informant is aggrieved by the fact that informant executed a sale deed with respect to his land, in that event he can move a Court of competent civil jurisdiction for getting the sale deed cancelled.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State, Dr. Mrityunjaya Kr. Gautam vehemently opposes the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner and submits that prima facie the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on the face of it appears to be attractive, but then is fit to be rejected for the reason that though petitioner claims that the land which has been sold belongs to him, but then no documentary evidence has been brought on record to even remotely substantiate that the land belongs to the petitioner. It is also submitted that no doubt informant has a remedy of approaching a Court of competent civil jurisdiction for getting the sale deed cancelled, the said remedy the informant may or may not adopt, but then had the petitioner brought on record any Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52562 of 2026(2) dt.13-08-2026
document suggesting that the land belongs to him or his family members, in that event the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would have found force, it is also submitted that even the order impugned records that the decree of the learned Sub-Jude, Begusarai is on record, but still petitioner is claiming the land as his.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands rejected.
Rishabh/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T