DINBANDHU versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

Citation: [2011] 11 S.C.R. 504 · Decided: 23-09-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AFTAB ALAM, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2011] 11 S.C.R. 504 
DINBANDHU 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1903 of 2011) 
SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 
[AFTAB ALAM AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.] 
Bail - Conditional anticipatory bail - Propriety of -
Appellant and respondent No. 2 are brothers - In a partition 
c suit between the parties pending in the civil court, it was case 
of respondent No. 2 that deed of partition produced by the 
appellant was subjected to alterations and interpolations -
Criminal complaint ulss. 192, 193, 196, 200, 420, 406, 467, 
468 and 471 /PC against appellant by respondent No. 2 -
0 Application by the appellant praying for anticipatory bail -
Grant of, by the High Court subject to the condition that in the 
partition suit pending between the parties, neither of the parties 
would use the family arrangement-cum-partition deed as 
evidence - Petition by the appellant for relieving him from the 
E said condition - Rejected by the High Court - On appeal, 
held: It is for the civil court dealing with the partition suit 
between the parties to examine and test the genuineness of 
the deed of partition produced by the appellant in support of 
his case - If the civil court found it to be actually fraudulent 
or subjected to interpolation or forgery, it would be open to it 
F to institute proper proceedings against the appellant in terms 
of s. 340 Cr. P. C. - Genuineness and validity of the document 
can hardly be tested in the complaint case and certainly not 
at the stage of grant of bail to the accused - The condition 
put by the High Court amounts to pre-judging the issue -
G Thus, the condition attached by the High Court to the 
anticipatory bail granted to the appellant is quite bad and 
illegal and cannot be sustained -
Appellant and the 
complainant not bound by that condition. 
H 
504 
DINBANDHU v. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. 
505 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
A 
No. 1903 of 2011. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.07.2010 of the 
High Court of Patna in Criminal Misc. No. 24472 of 2010. 
M.A. Chinnasamy (NP) for the appellant. 
Chandan Kumar (for Gopal Singh) and Jay Kishore Singh 
for the respondents. 
The following order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
Leave granted. 
Heard counsel for the parties. 
The appellant, who is an accused in a complaint case 
under sections 19.2, 193, 196, 200, 420, 406, 467, 468 and 
471 of the Penal Code, was granted anticipatory bail by the 
High Court by order dated May 06, 2010 in Crl.M.C. No. 12306 
B 
c 
D 
of 2010. The bail order was, however, subject to a rather 
E 
curious condition. The order stipulated that in a partition suit 
that was pending between the parties, neither the accused nor 
the informant would use a certain document (a family 
arrangement-cum-partition deed) as evidence. The relevant 
portion of the High Court order reads as follows: 
F 
" ... It is made clear that for deciding the partition suit the 
alleged document, which is subject matter of dispute in the 
present case, shall not be used by the either party in 
support of their claim for partition" 
The complainant-respondent No.2 and the appellant-the 
accused happen to be brothers. It appears that a partition suit, 
registered as Partition Suit No. 24 of 2004 is pending in the 
Court of Sub-Ju9ge I, Lakhisarai in which both the complainant 
G 
and the accused appellant are on rival sides. In that suit the 
H 
506 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 11 S.C.R. 
A appellant apparently relied upon a "Shartnama" (deed of 
partition). According to the complainant, the "Shartnama" 
produced by the appellant was subjected to alterations and 
interpolations. He, therefore flied the complaint even before the 
civil court had an occasion to examine the piece of evidence-
s and comment upon its correctness and genuineness or 
otherwise. 
In the complaint it is stated (in paragraph 7): 
"That accused Dinbandhu has committed an offence 
C 
of filing a false document on the record of Partition Suit 
No.24 of 2004 in the Court of Sub-Judge 1st, Lakhisarai, 
with the knowledge that the document filed by him is false, 
containing deletions and additions and therefore it is a 
sham document which has been filed to mislead the Court 
D 
purporting it to be a genuine document and has, thereby, 
affected the suit." 
It was in the case arising from the complaint that the High 
Court allowed the appellant's prayer for anticipatory bail but 
E subject to the condition as seen above. 
The appellant later on move

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.