Bijendra Tiwari @ Khalifa Tiwari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13410 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-565 Year-2023 Thana- GOVINDGANJ District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.

BIJENDRA TIWARI @ KHALIFA TIWARI S/O LATE RAMSAKAL TIWARI R/O VILLAGE- SAREYA, P.S- GOVINDGANJ (ARERAJ), DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN.

2.

ASHUTOSH KUMAR SINGH @ TINKU SINGH @ ASHUTOSH SINGH S/O SHIV TAGAT SINGH @ JAGAT SINGH R/O VILLAGE- SAREYA, P.S- GOVINDGANJ (ARERAJ), DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN. 3.

SUBODH KUMAR PANDEY @ RUNA PANDEY S/O SHASHI KANT PANDEY R/O VILLAGE- SAREYA, P.S- GOVINDGANJ (ARERAJ), DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manjeet Kumar Mishra, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Yogendra Mishra, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Swati Mishra, Adv.

For the State :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 19-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned APP for the State.

2. In this case, the petitioners are seeking regular bail in connection with Govindganj (Areraj) P.S. Case No. 565 of 2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 470, 471, 387, 506, 120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per allegation, petitioner no. 2 sold the land, which was allotted to the informant in partition, to the petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 3 is attesting witness of that sale deed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated. They are the persons of clean antecedents.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13410 of 2024(3) dt.19-07-2024 2/2

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the informant as well as learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is allegation against the petitioner no. 2 that he sold the land of the informant to the petitioner no. 1. The land, as per allegation, did not belong to petitioner no. 2.

6. Petitioner No. 2 Ashutosh Kumar Singh @ Tinku Singh does not deserve the privilege for bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected.

7. It appears that the petitioner no. 1 is himself cheated by petitioner no. 2. So far as petitioner no. 3 is concerned, he is merely attesting witness of that sale deed.

8. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, let the petitioner nos. 1 and 3, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., East Champaran, Motihari in connection with Govindganj (Areraj) P.S. Case No. 565 of 2023, subject to the following condition:- The petitioners shall cooperate in the disposal of trial and make themselves available as and when required by the court. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) SONALI/- U T