Sunita Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5564 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2525 Year-2017 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna ====================================================== SUNITA DEVI W/o Ranjan Prasad R/o Saidpur, P.O. and P.S.- Khagaual, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Binod Kumar S/o Tarkeshwar Saw R/o- Chhoti Badalpura, Baulipar, P.O. and P.S.- Khagaual, District- Patna. At present New Prem Hardware, Main Road Kankarbag, P.S.- Kankarbag, District- Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bindhyachal Rai, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 13-07-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State alongwith learned counsel for the informant. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is a women and the informant alleges that petitioner after receiving consideration amount of Rs. 2,45,000/- did not execute the sale deed with respect to the land in question.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the present case, it is next

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5564 of 2020(8) dt.13-07-2023 2/3 submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the dispute is purely civil, it is next submitted that petitioner had not received an amount or Rs. 2,45,000/- but had only received Rs. 1,50,000/- and thus the sale deed was not executed, it is also submitted that out of Rs. 1,50,000/- an amount of Rs. 85,000/- has been returned to the informant and the petitioner still is willing to return the rest of the amount i.e., Rs. 65,000/-.

Learned A.P.P. for the State alongwith learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioner had taken Rs. 2,45,000/- and not Rs. 1,50,000/-, it is further submitted that the matter was even referred for mediation and is still pending. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the dispute is purely civil in nature. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of her arrest or surrender before the learned trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5564 of 2020(8) dt.13-07-2023 3/3 is pending/successor court in connection with Complaint Case No. 2525 (C) of 2017 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Adnan/- U T