Anil Kumar Ray @ Anil Ray v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.364 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-332 Year-2017 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictRohtas ====================================================== Anil Kumar Ray @ Anil Ray Son of Late Arjun Ray, resident of Village Ghatikan Tola, Shahpur, P.S. Sheosagar, District Rohtas. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Gyanchand Singh, son of Shri Lal Bahadur Singh, resident of Mohalla Takiya, P.O Takiya Bazar Samiti, P.S Sheosagar, District- Rohtas. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sada Nand Roy For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Panchanand Pandit ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 28-03-2019 This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 332 of 2017, disclosing offences under Sections 420, 406, 325, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegation against the petitioner is that he has taken Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant for a period of three years and made a Baibulwafa on the Stamp of Rs.100/- in favour of the complainant and further mentioned on it that he mortgaged his two Bigha land bearing Khata No.30, Plot No.887 for a period of three years and also mentioned that he will return the amount, but thereafter after expiry of the period, on demand of money, the petitioner refused to return money and thereafter the complaint sent a legal notice also, but no payment was made by the petitioner.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.364 of 2019(3) dt.28-03-2019 2/2 It appears from perusal of the order dated 31.01.2019 that the matter was sent to the Patna High Court Mediation Committee and the report of the Mediation Committee, which is at flag 'M' shows that the mediation has failed.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no such amount has been taken by the petitioner and the whole paper of agreement is forged.

Heard learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel for the complainant, they have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner stating that neither the possession of the land has been given nor the money has been returned by the petitioner and the agreement paper clearly shows that the petitioner has taken Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant.

Having heard both sides, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. However, if the petitioner surrender before the court below and ready to pay the amount to the complainant on some installments, his prayer for bail shall be considered by the learned court below.

Accordingly, this application is disposed of. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) Amjad/- U T