Subodh Kumar Nirala v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17785 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-613 Year-2022 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE - DANAPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Subodh Kumar Nirala S/O Late Mahavir Pandit Resident of Village- Dujara, P.S.- Budha Colony, Distt. and Town- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Randhir Kumar S/O Late Dharmendra Singh R/O Village- Bhagwatipur, P.SShahpur, Distt.- Patna. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Md. Fahimuddin, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 02-04-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
02. In the present case, the petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 613 of 2022 registered for the alleged offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
03. As per prosecution case, co-accused Ravindra Singh sold a piece of land belonging to the complainant to co-accused Uday Kumar and the petitioner and other co-accused witnessed the sale deed.
04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The complainant and the co-accused Ravidnra Singh (vendor) and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17785 of 2025(2) dt.02-04-2025 2/3 his son Gulshan Kumar (witness) are agnates. At the request of coaccused Gulshan Kumar who is friend of this petitioner, the petitioner went to the Registry Office and witnessed the sale deed. The petitioner was not having any knowledge about the title of the transferred land. In the sale deed, the vendor claimed that the said land was ancestral land of the vendor. From the facts, no offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of IPC is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner is having clean antecedent.
05. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.
06. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and submission made on behalf of the parties and considering the fact that the petitioner only witnessed a sale transaction and there is no further allegation and further considering the clean antecedent of the petitioner and possibility of false implication, let the petitioner above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court concerned within a period of eight weeks from today, be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Danapur/court concerned, Patna in connection with Complaint Case No. 613-C of 2022, subject to the condition laid down under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17785 of 2025(2) dt.02-04-2025 3/3 Section 482(2) of BNSS and other following conditions: (i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner will remain present on each and every date fixed by the court below, if so required by the learned trial court.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J) Ashish/- U T