Abdul Sattar @ Abdus Sattar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21746 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1880 Year-2023 Thana- BEGUSARAI COMPLAINT CASE District- Begusarai ====================================================== Abdul Sattar @ Abdus Sattar S/O Late Abdul Sallauddin Resident of VillageTilak Nagar, infront V-Mart, in fornt of Natraj Hotel, Ward no 12, (Old) 32 (New), P.S- Town, District- Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar Bihar 2.
Md. Riyazul Haque S/O Md. Ansarul Haque R/O Village- Nawab Chowk, Pokhadiya, Ward No. 35, P.S- Town, Distt.- Begusarai ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Rajdan Bukhari For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Anil Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 30-04-2025
1. Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 1880(c) / 2023 registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 of the I.P.C.
3. As per the complaint lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 09.08.1989 the complainant's father was given a shop on rent by the Zila Parishad Market, Begusarai having shop no. 4 on the first floor. The petitioner was working as a salesman in the complainant's shop. When the father of the complainant became ill, the petitioner started running shop with the arrangement that after adjustment of the investment, the profit would be shared half-n-half. When the complainant's father demanded his share,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21746 of 2025(2) dt.30-04-2025 2/3 the petitioner refused to part with the money and abused and told him that he had purchased the shop from him. When the complainant and his father protested, then accused i.e. petitioner tried to transfer the shop by making forged signature of the complainant's father. It has further been alleged that petitioner tried to grab the share of the complainant's father by playing fraud and forging the signature of his father.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate after examining the complainant and the witnesses has taken cognizance only under section 406 I.P.C. He further submits that from perusal of the complaint and the S.A. it appears that there was dispute between the complainant's father and the petitioner regarding share of profit earned from the shop in question. The allegation regarding forged signature has not been substantiated by the complainant and the witnesses during the course of enquiry as such cognizance has only been taken under section 406 I.P.C.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the state, taking into consideration the nature of allegation and the fact that there appears to be business relationship between the petitioner and the complainant's father, accordingly I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21746 of 2025(2) dt.30-04-2025 3/3
6. Let the petitioner, above named, be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from today on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Mr. Rohit Kumar Gaurav, Judicial Magistrate- Ist Class, Begusarai in connection with Complaint Case No. 1880(c) / 2023 subject to the condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. 2023.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) praful/- U T