Shailesh Patel @ Shailesh Kumar Patel v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3641 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1269 Year-2024 Thana- EAST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT District- East Champaran ====================================================== Shailesh Patel @ Shailesh Kumar Patel S/O Rambelas Patel @ Rambilash Patel Resident of village - Bahurupiya , P.S.- Sugauli , District -East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Pannalal Giri S/O Late Devilal Giri R/O Vill.- Kolhuarwa, P.S.- Motihari Town, Dist.- East Champaran.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Prateek Tandon, Advocate For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Pravin Kumar, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 19-06-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 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, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The crux of the allegation in the complaint petition is that the complainant has been sold a plot of land by co-accused, Ashok Yadav upon payment of consideration amount of Rs.33,01,000/- and, subsequently, it came to the knowledge of the complainant that the land was already on lease of Sugauli Sugar Factory, HPCL. It is further alleged that the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3641 of 2025(5) dt.19-06-2025 2/3 had taken an amount of Rs.3500/- from the complainant to get the land mutated in his name and he has acted hand in gloves in his bid to cheat the complainant.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it would be apparent from a reading of the complaint petition itself that the thrust of the allegation is against co-accused, Ashok Yadav whose land was sold to the complainant and the role of the petitioner confines to the fact that he had taken a sum of Rs.3500/- from the complainant. It is further submitted that despite the fact that he has got the work of the complainant done by getting the mutation done, yet he is ready to return the said amount of Rs.3500/- and the same would be done within a period of two weeks.

5. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the fact that the petitioner is ready to return Rs.3500/- to the complainant, let the above named petitioner, be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today, 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 Court below where the case is pending/successor

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3641 of 2025(5) dt.19-06-2025 3/3 Court in connection with Complaint Case No.1269 of 2024, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

7. The learned Court below is directed to accept the bail bonds of the petitioner after production of receipt/evidence of payment of Rs.3500/- to the complainant.

8. Accordingly, this application stands disposed of. (Soni Shrivastava, J) Trivedi/- U T