← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./13021/2024bail granted

Rakesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-03-14Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13021 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-250 Year-2023 Thana- GAYA MUFASIL District- Gaya ====================================================== Rakesh Kumar Son of Dhirendra Singh Resident of Village- Upathu (Upthu), Police Station- Atri, District- Gaya and present resident of Lakhibag, Dalmiyan Compound, Near Khadi bhandar, Police Station- Muffasl, DistrictGaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Aryan Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Lalan Kumar For the O.P. No. 2 :

Kumar Dhirendra Pratap Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 14-03-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State along with learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 323, 379, 386, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of six cases, but then the criminal antecedent should not dissuade the Court from considering the application of the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail, rather the allegation as alleged in the FIR be appreciated.

4. The informant alleges that petitioner confined him

2/4 in his house and forcefully got certain documents signed and even obtained signature on blank paper and taking advantage of the same got land of the informant executed in favour of his wife. It is next submitted that what is not in dispute rather stands admitted from the allegation as alleged in the FIR itself is that the petitioner and the informant are own cousin brothers (Mausera). It is further submitted that the informant alleges that under threat he was made to execute sale deed with respect to his land in favour of the wife of the petitioner on 20.02.2023, but thereafter on 22.02.2023, the informant executed another sale deed with respect to the same land in favour of one Chandan Kumar. It is next submitted that thereafter on 27.02.2023, the present FIR came to be instituted.

It is further submitted that if the informant was confined by the petitioner and he was made to execute sale deed with respect to his land in favour of the wife of the petitioner on 20.02.2023 then why no FIR came to be instituted on the same day or a day thereafter, why it took seven days for the informant to institute the instant FIR, It is next submitted that since the informant had sold the same land to Chandan Kumar, as such, in order to cover up his misdeed, the present false FIR was instituted.

3/4 colour has been given.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State along with learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner but then are not in a position to rebut the submissions of the the learned counsel for the petitioner that as to why the FIR came to be instituted after executing two sale deeds i.e. on 20.02.2023 and 22.02.2023, though a feeble effort has been made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 to submit that the informant was so frightened of the petitioner that he was not gathering courage to get an FIR instituted but it was only after Chandan Singh was ready to help him he could gather courage to get the FIR instituted, the said submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 is rebutted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that had the informant been so frightened with the act of the petitioner, in that event, he would not have executed the sale deed with respect to the same land in favour of Chandan Kumar.

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

4/4 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 Muffasil P.S. Case No. 250 of 2023 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T