Girja Paswan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14203 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-109 Year-2022 Thana- KURTHA District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Girja Paswan Son Of Late Rajgir Paswan R/V Nayansukh Bigha, P.S.- Kurtha, District- Arwal ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Gori Devi @ Gauri Devi Wife Of Ramesh Yadav R/V Pratappur, P.S.- Kurtha, District- Arwal ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Shivendra Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Akhileshwar Dayal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 18-05-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
The petitioner in the present case is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Kurtha P.S. Case No.- 109 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 420, 467, 468 and 504/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He has got no criminal antecedent.
As per the prosecution story, on 11.02.2021 the informant purchased a land from the petitioner but when she went over the land, she came to know that the petitioner has sold the same land which his mother had already sold in the year 1975. Later on when the informant asked the petitioner to return her money back, and took the matter to Panchayat. When
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14203 of 2023(2) dt.18-05-2023 2/2 Panchayati was held, the panches ordered the petitioner to return the said money but the petitioner refused to do the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the parties are agnates and the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.
Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, wherein it appears that the petitioner has sold the same land which his mother had already sold in the year 1975 and thereby he has duped the informant of this case, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Prayer is refused. This application is dismissed. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) tusharika/- U T