Ehtasham Ahmad v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4431 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-189 Year-2024 Thana- PURNIA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPurnia ====================================================== Ehtasham Ahmad Son of Ishtiyak Ahmad Resident of Chandbhati PS -Dagarua District- Purnea ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Md. Firoz Alam son of Md. Abbas village- Sakrail, ps- Dagarua, DistPurnea ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Md Fazle Karim For the Opposite Party/s :
Md. Fahimuddin Dr. Bidhu Ranjan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 09-05-2025 1.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant.
2.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 324, 384, 385, 420, 467, 468, 406, 504, 506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the complainant alleges that petitioner agreed to sell his land as detailed in the FIR, accordingly an agreement for sale was entered in between the complainant and the petitioner and the consideration of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4431 of 2025(3) dt.09-05-2025 2/3 land was fixed at Rs. 12 lakh, further the petitioner received an amount of Rs. 10 lakh, thereafter when complainant went to the house of petitioner with rest of the amount for getting the sale deed executed, when petitioner abused and assaulted him and even took Rs. 15,000/- by way of extortion.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the complainant. It is next submitted that no agreement for sale was ever entered in between the petitioner and the complainant. It is also submitted that the agreement for sale on which the complainant is placing reliance, is a forged and fabricated document and a specific statement to this effect has been made at para 14 and 18 of the anticipatory bail application. It is further submitted that petitioner had earlier instituted Dagrua P.S. Case No. 32 of 2024 dated 18-1-2024 (Annexure-4) against the complainant alleging that complainant cheated him based on an agreement for sale of an amount of Rs. 9 lakh. It is next submitted that since Dagrua P.S. Case No. 32 of 2024 dated 181-2024 was instituted by the petitioner, as such the complainant instituted the instant case in order to coerce the petitioner into submission. It is also submitted that even presuming what has been alleged is true without admitting then the complainant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4431 of 2025(3) dt.09-05-2025 3/3 ought to have approached the court of competent civil jurisdiction for getting the sale deed executed in terms of the agreement for sale, but then the complainant resorted to a criminal proceeding. It is also submitted that had the complainant approached the court of competent civil jurisdiction, the petitioner would have raised his objection. 5.
Learned A.P.P. for the State along with learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. 6.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his 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 is pending/successor court in connection with Complaint Case No. 189 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) SUMIT/- U T