Arvind Sharma @ Guddu Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7005 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-259 Year-2023 Thana- GOVINDGANJ District- East Champaran ====================================================== Arvind Sharma @ Guddu Sharma Son Of Late Yogendra Sharma Resident Of Village - Sharma Tola, Ward No. 6, P.S.- Govindganj (Areraj O.P.), District - East Champaran, Motihari ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Karandeep Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Dinesh Singh, APP For the Informant/s :

Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Abhishek Ranjan, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 09-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Govindganj (Areraj) P.S. Case No. 259 of 2023 dated 05.05.2023, lodged under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120(B) and 34 of the I.P.C.

3. As per the prosecution case, the allegation of forgery of sale deed is against 6 named accused persons including the present petitioner and all accused persons in connivance with each other has executed a sale deed by a nonexisting person, namely, Gopinath Pandey and the petitioner had identified him as Gopinath Pandey.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7005 of 2024(3) dt.09-04-2024 2/2 that the antecedent of the petitioner is clean and he is in custody since 09.10.2023 in which charge-sheet has already been filed. He further submits that the petitioner is only the identifier. He is not the beneficiary by virtue of the sale deed.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

6. Learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that it is the petitioner, who has falsely identified a non-existing person as an existing person.

7. In this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and therefore, his bail petition is hereby rejected with liberty that he may renew his prayer for bail 6 months after framing of charge and in case the petitioner comes with Gopinath Pandey before the Trial Court with all his relevant documents then only in that case, the Trial Court is directed to release him on bail immediately.

8. With this observation, the bail application stands disposed of.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) sadique/- U T