Shobha Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12985 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-467 Year-2019 Thana- BHAGALPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== 1.

SHOBHA DEVI Wife of Dilo Sah R/V- Chhoti Parbatta, P.s- Ismailpur, Dist- Bhagalpur 2.

Nirmala Devi Wife of Vishnudeo Mandal R/V- Chhoti Parbatta, P.sIsmailpur, Dist- Bhagalpur 3.

Sumitra Devi Wife of Jairam Mandal R/V- Shiv Mandir Tola, P.S- Ismailpur, Dist- Bhagalpur 4.

Binod Mandal Son of Jagdish Mandal R/V- Radhuni Tola ( Shiv Mindar Tola) P.S- Ismailpur, Dist- Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh Mr. Dhiresh Kumar Dhiraj ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 02-08-2023 Heard the parties.

2.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.467 of 2019, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

Allegedly, the petitioners and other co-accused persons committed cheat and fraud with the complainant for executing land in his favour.

4.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and have committed no offence.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12985 of 2023(3) dt.02-08-2023 2/2 They have been falsely implicated in this case. No such occurrence, in the manner as alleged, has ever taken place. The allegation levelled against the petitioners is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. There is no specific overt act against the petitioners. There is an admitted land dispute between the petitioners. Petitioners have no criminal antecedent. 5.

Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioner no.4 has suppressed his criminal antecedent. 6.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as considering the nature of allegations, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on their behalf is hereby rejected. 7.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) shikha/- U T