Pramod Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.22631 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -164 Year- 2016 Thana -HAJIPUR District- VAISHALI (HAJIPUR) ====================================================== Pramod Kumar Singh, Son of late Ram Ishwar Singh, Resident of VillageSahjadpur, Andar Quila, Police Station Hajipur town, District Vaishali. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance:

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Devendra Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajendra Singh Shastri, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 26-07-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Hajipur Town P.S. Case No. 164 of 2016 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant alleged that he had given power of attorney to Pramod Kumar Singh to look after his land but without taking his permission, Pramod Kumar Singh forged his signature and thumb impression and executed the sale deed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the informant executed the power of attorney to the petitioner and on the basis of the aforesaid power of attorney, the petitioner executed the sale deed. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22631 of 2016 (2) dt.26-07-2016 2/2 refuted the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that from perusal of the sale deed itself it appears that the petitioner has impersonated the informant and his signature and thumb impression were forged.

It appears from perusal of the sale deed that Pramod Kumar Singh also put his thumb impression and signature in the sale deed but in place of Abhimanyu Kumar Singh (the informant) someone else was set up at his instance and the signature and thumb impression of the informant were forged in the sale deed Considering the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegation made against the petitioner that he forged the signature and thumb impression of the informant, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in Hajipur (Town) P.S. Case No. 164 of 2016. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Dilip/- U T