Dinesh Kumar Prasad @ Dinesh Kumar Gupta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19994 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-547 Year-2018 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictRohtas ====================================================== DINESH KUMAR PRASAD @ DINESH KUMAR GUPTA S/O LATE BHARAT SAH Resident of Village- Bishikalan, P.S.- Dinara, DistrictRohtas. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

RAMAWATI DEVI W/O SURENDRA SHARMA Resident of VillageBisikalan, P.S.- Dinara, District- Rohtas. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Kanhaiya Kishore, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 23-02-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 323, 504 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel submits that notice on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 was received by her husband and, accordingly, an application of jointness has been filed that opposite party no. 2 is residing with her husband.

4. In view of the fact that an application of jointness has been filed, as such, the notice has been deemed to have been validly served.

5. Learned counsel next submits that despite receiving

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19994 of 2023(6) dt.23-02-2024 2/3 notice, the opposite party no. 2 chooses not to contest the case.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that a purely civil dispute has been given a criminal colour. It is further submitted that the complainant alleges that she is an illiterate woman and the accused persons including the petitioner, after hatching a conspiracy, sold 10 decimal of land at Mauza Bisikalan, Khata No. 24, Khasra No. 717, total area 36 decimal to her when the land was earlier sold by Bharat Sah, the father of the petitioner to another person but then the accused persons including the petitioner sold the land to the complainant on a plea that the land is free from all encumbrances.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that from perusal of the allegation, it would manifest that the complainant alleges that the land was sold to her by Panjariya Devi and this petitioner has no concern with Panjariya Devi nor this petitioner had executed the sale deed nor he is a witness on the sale deed rather came to be implicated only on the ground that the father of this petitioner had sold the land earlier to someone else. It is next submitted that the land was sold in the year 2010 and the complainant filed the present complaint case in the year 2018 i.e. after eight years of the occurrence which

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19994 of 2023(6) dt.23-02-2024 3/3 further casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution. It is also submitted, at the cost of repetition, that petitioner is not involved in the transaction of sale and purchase of the land in question which was in between Panjariya Devi and the complainant.

8. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

9. 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 Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on 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 court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Complaint Case No. 547 of 2018, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T