Patna High Court – Orders
Syed Badi Asghar @ Syed Badie Asghar vs The State Of Bihar on 18 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40454 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4634 Year-2022 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
1. Syed Badi Asghar @ Syed Badie Asghar Son Of Late Syed Hassan Flat No.
101, High Tech Areeb Apartment, Road No. 3, New Patliputra Colony, P.O.
P.S. Patliputra, District- Patna
2. Sheema Nezami @ Sheema Nizami Wife Of Syed Badi Asghar Resident Of
Flat No. 101, High Tech Areeb Apartment, Road No. 3, New Patliputra
Colony, Po And Ps- Patliputra, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The state of Bihar
2. Effat naseem wife of late md. Naseem @ mohammad naseem resident of
isopur, po and ps- phulwarisharif, district- patna at present flat no. H.i/1st
floor, al-hamd gulmohar suites near nadeem tarin hall, sir syed nagar koil,
district- aligarh
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Nafisuzzoha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Binod Kumar. APP
For the Complainat : Mr. Allama Abdul Quadir, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
5 18-06-2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party
no.2/complainant.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in
connection with Patna Complaint Case no.4634C of 2022
registered under sections 420, 409, 418, 423, 467, 468, 120B
and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The case of the prosecution is that husband of the
opposite party no.2/complainant had executed a Power of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40454 of 2023(5) dt.18-06-2025
2/4
Attorney in favour of petitioner no.1 Sayed Badi Asgar for
selling his lands. It is alleged that despite the fact that husband
of the opposite party no.2/complainant had died and yet based
on the said Power of Attorney, the petitioner no.1 executed sale
deed in respect of land in question in favour of his wife Sheema
Nezami (petitioner no.2) and one Salma Khatoon. It has further
been submitted that husband of opposite party no.2/complainant
had made a deed of agreement with petitioner no.1 for the sale
of land and subsequently, a Power of Attorney had been
executed in favour of petitioner no.1 for the sale of property.
The petitioner no.1 has already paid the full consideration
amount in the account of husband of opposite party
no.2/complainant and her son. The further submission on their
behalf is that the case is purely of civil nature and the opposite
party/complainant has alternative civil remedies which are being
pursued by the complainant by filing a title suit bearing Title
Suit No. 191 of 2022. The petitioners have no criminal
antecedent and undertake to co-operate in the case/trial.
4. Per contra, it is submitted on behalf of opposite
party no.2/complainant that a fraud has been committed by the
petitioners as petitioner no. 1 has fraudulently executed sale
deed with respect to the land in question in favour of his own
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40454 of 2023(5) dt.18-06-2025
3/4
wife who is petitioner no.2 and one Salma Khatoon even after
having knowledge of the fact that husband of opposite party
no.2/complainat who had executed a Power of Attorney in favor
of petitioner no.1 had already died and hence, no action could
be taken on the said Power of Attorney. It has also further been
submitted that deed of agreement which has been mentioned in
the petition was already cancelled. The application for grant of
anticipatory bail of Co-accused Yusuf Abdullah has already been
rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
18.09.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 41877 of 2023.
5. It appears that the instant case is kept pending for a
long time on the ground that the petitioners would approach the
opposite party no.2/complainant and get the matter settled.
However, by his fraudulent act, the petitioner no.1 has kept a
widow running from pillar to post for her land and hence for
such offence, the petitioner no.1 who has executed the sale deed
does not deserve the benefit of anticipatory bail and the
application is rejected with respect to petitioner no.1 Sayed Badi
Asghar @ Syed Badie Asghar.
6. So far as petitioner no.2 is concerned, no doubt she
is also a beneficiary in the present case as the land has been
executed in her name but considering the fact that she is a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40454 of 2023(5) dt.18-06-2025
4/4
pardanasin lady and is not aware of the intricacies involved, in
such view of the matter, I am inclined to grant privilege
anticipatory bail to the petitioner no.2. Let the petitioner no.2,
namely, Sheema Nezami @ Sheema Nizami in the event of her
arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a
period of four weeks, be released on anticipatory bail in
connection with Complaint Case no.4634C of 2022 on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Patna subject to the
condition laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure/Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S, 2023 and
subject to the further condition that petitioner no.2 will co-
operate in case/trial.
7. The application stands disposed of.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Harsh/-
U T