Patna High Court – Orders
Kshitij Bhardwaj @ Sonu Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 16 April, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.356 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-124 Year-2019 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
Kshitij Bhardwaj @ Sonu Kumar Son Of Late Chandra Mohan Prasad Singh
@ Dipak Kumar Singh, Resident Of Vill.-Walipur, P.S.-Pipariya, Dist-
Lakhisarai, P/A-Resident Of- Krishna-Arjun Bhawan, Lallu Pokhar, P.O.-
Munger, P.S.-Kasim Bazaar, Dist-Munger, Bihar-811201
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Manju Singh W/o Gopal Prasad @ Brajmohan Pd. Singh, R/o vill - Walipur,
P.S. - Pipariya, Distt. - Lakhisarai
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Deo Prakash Singh, Advocate
For the O.P. No. 2 : Ms. Roona, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath Thakur, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
ORAL ORDER
14 16-04-2025
The petitioner is the buyer of a piece of land
originally belongs to the complainant and others. On the
allegation that the petitioner executed a forged deed in respect
of the transfer of the said land. The complainant/opposite party
lodged a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Lakhisarai for the offence under Sections
420/467/468/471/120B of the IPC. Initially, the petitioner did
not appear before the trial court on the ground that the
complaint was filed within the period of COVID Pandemic.
Be that as it may. The warrant of arrest was issued against the
petitioner. Subsequently, a process under Section 82 of the CrPC
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.356 of 2023(14) dt.16-04-2025
2/5
was also initiated by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai
in order to compel petitioner’s appearance. Even then, he did
not appear.
2. On the contrary, the petitioner moved to Hon’ble
Supreme Court in SLP ( CRL) No. 1256 of 2023 which was
disposed of vide order dated 06th February 2023 with the
following direction:-
“Learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner states that the petitioner will appear
before the concerned Court and will apply for
cancellation of warrant.
If the petitioner appears and applies for
cancellation of warrant within a period of two
weeks from today, the application shall be decided
as expeditiously as possible. The warrant shall not
be executed against the petitioner for a period of
four weeks from today.
The special leave petition is disposed of.
All pending applications are also
disposed of."
3. In compliance of the said order, the petitioner
surrendered before the trial court on 13.02.2023, along with the
petition praying for cancellation of bail. The said application
was disposed of on 25th February 2023 by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, holding, inter alia, that the petition dated 13th
February 2023 had no merit and the same was rejected.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.356 of 2023(14) dt.16-04-2025
3/5
4. While rejecting the said application, the learned
Magistrate observed that previously the application for
anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner was rejected by the
learned Sessions Judge, Lakhisarai as well as by this Court and
there is a specific allegation of false signature taken in the sale
deed while the daughter of the complainant was in London
during that period. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner
that the learned Judicial Magistrate failed to take into
consideration the spirit of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex
Court and wrongly rejected the prayer for cancellation of
warrant issued against him.
5. The learned Advocate on behalf of the opposite
party/complainant on the other hand, supports the order dated
25th February, 2023 on the ground that the complainant made
out a case of illegal land grabbing by executing a false deed of
sale on the basis of forged signature of the daughter of the
complainant. On the date of execution of the alleged sale deed,
she was in England, therefore, it was not possible for her to put
her signature on the said sale deed. It is submitted that the
specific allegation against the petitioner/accused was held by the
learned Magistrate to be an offense under Sections
420/467/468/471/120B of the IPC and considering the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.356 of 2023(14) dt.16-04-2025
4/5seriousness of the case, the prayer for cancellation of warrant
was rejected.
6. Having heard the learned Advocates on behalf of
the parties at length, this Court records at the outset that at the
instance of the complainant, a complaint case being 124(c)/2019
is registered against the petitioner. The learned Magistrate took
cognizance of the offence on the basis of initial statement and
examination of the complainant and witnesses under Section
200 of the CrPC. Summons were issued initially against the
accused/petitioner but he did not appear pursuant to the
summons. Therefore, warrant of arrest was issued against him.
The petitioner prayed for cancellation of warrant upon rejection
of the said application. The petitioner moved before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the
learned Magistrate to dispose of the application for cancellation
of warrant forthwith and in the meantime execution of warrant
was stayed for a period of four weeks.
7. The learned Magistrate did not consider that the
petitioner filed the application for cancellation of bail upon due
surrender, therefore, when the petitioner surrendered before the
trial court and submitted to the jurisdiction of the learned
Magistrate, the warrant of arrest ought to be cancelled and his
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.356 of 2023(14) dt.16-04-2025
5/5prayer for bail should be considered applying the golden rule of
bail jurisprudence that bail is the rule and jail is an exception.
8. For the reasons stated above, I cannot agree that
with the impugned order dated 25th February 2023. The
impugned order dated 25th February, 2023 is therefore, set-aside.
The revisional application is allowed. The petitioner is directed
to surrender himself before the trial court within two weeks
from the date of this order along with a fresh application of
cancellation of warrant. The learned Magistrate is directed to
dispose of the same within two weeks from the date of filing of
such application considering the fact that the petitioner would
submit to the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate to face trial.
9. With the above direction, the instant criminal
revision is disposed of.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
Suraj Dubey/-
U T
[ad_1]
Source link