Chandrama Rai @ Chandrama Roy v. The State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14414 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-653 Year-2017 Thana- SARAN COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSaran ====================================================== CHANDRAMA RAI @ CHANDRAMA ROY, Male, aged about 65 years, Son of Late Kanhayee Rai, Resident of Village - Khabsi, P.S.- Baniapur, Distt.- Saran ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.

Kedar Rai, Male, about 70 years, son of Late Ramanad Rai, Resident of Village - Khabsi, P.S.- Baniapur, Distt.- Saran ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Parties :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 12-03-2019 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the State.

The petitioner is languishing in judicial custody in connection with Complaint Case No. 653 of 2017 for the offences alleged under Sections 467, 468, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

The complaint case, as lodged by the complainant, Kedar Rai, is that he got a piece of land as his exclusive share by way of partition, but, fraudulently, his son, Manoj Rai, has sold a part of the said piece of land of the complainant to the petitioner by preparing a forged document.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is innocent, bears no criminal history and is just a purchaser of the land. The deal being struck by the son of the complainant and he did not know that the documents prepared were forged document. He, further, submits that the matter

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14414 of 2019(2) dt.12-03-2019 2/2 relates to civil dispute and the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case. Petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the investigation not to induce witnesses or tamper with the prosecution evidence.

However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances and the materials on record, let the petitioner, above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with Complaint Case No. 653 of 2017 to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, XI, Saran at Chapra, subject to the condition that one of the bailors would be a close relative of the petitioner having sufficient immovable property, who will file an affidavit stating his relationship with the petitioner.

(Nilu Agrawal, J) Shamshad/- U T