Sachin Kumar Soni @ Sachin Kumar Sonu v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16403 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-682 Year-2023 Thana- ARA NAGAR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== 1.
SACHIN KUMAR SONI @ SACHIN KUMAR SONU SON OF SHANKAR KUMAR GUPTA RESIDENT OF MOHALLA - TARI MOHALLA, P.S. - ARA TOWN, DISTRICT - BHOJPUR 2.
SUNNY KUMAR GUPTA SON OF SHANKAR KUMAR GUPTA RESIDENT OF MOHALLA - TARI MOHALLA, P.S. - ARA TOWN, DISTRICT - BHOJPUR ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 14-03-2024 Heard Mr. Ravindra Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Ara Town P.S. Case No. 682 of 2023 for the offence registered under sections 188, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code lodged on 22.08.2023 by the informant, Shailendra Kumar Yadav.
3. As per the prosecution story lodged by the Circle Officer, Sadar, Ara relating to Khata No.-122 (under P.S. No.- 239 in the village Murshidpur), there was complete ban on the sale purchase and the same was informed to the Registration Officer. However, interpolating the Khata, Khesra, earlier Shashi lata Jain, Shreyans Jain and Suchita Jain transferred it to the another set of accused persons Shri Shankar Kumar Gupta, Mamta Devi, Sachin Kumar Soni and Sunny Kumar Gupta who in turn again sold it to Amarnath Kesri, Roop Narayan Yadav,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16403 of 2024(2) dt.14-03-2024 2/2 Kamlesh Pandey and Satyendra Pandey again with wrong Khata No. Once the current purchaser started construction work, the same was stopped by the Government official whereafter this fact emerged followed by the FIR.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that they are the affected parties, having purchased the land from Shashi lata Jain, Shreyans Jain and Suchita Jain after losing the money.
5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, points out that contrary to the submissions so made, in view of the fact the plot numbers were forged, instead of going for mutation, they in turn sold the land to Amarnath Kesri, Roop Narayan Yadav, Kamlesh Pandey and Satyendra Pandey only whereafter this forgery came to light.
6. Considering the kind of allegation that has come against these two petitioners, it would be appropriate that they seek bail.
7. Cr. Misc. No. 16403 of 2024 stands rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) Neha/- U T