Rupak Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16911 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-690 Year-2018 Thana- KHAGARIA COMPALINT CASE District- Khagaria ====================================================== RUPAK KUMAR Son of Late Kamal Kishore Singh Resident of Village - Pansalwa, P.S.- Beldaur, District - Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR Bihar 2.

Mangli Devi Wife of Rudal Sahni Resident of Village - Dumri, P.S.- Beldaur, District - Khagaria ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Viveka Nandsingh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Harendra Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 03-05-2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.690C/2018 , registered for offences punishable under Sections 417, 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegation as per the complaint case is that a sale-deed was executed with respect to a piece of land of Khata No.235 by the son of Nageshwar Singh and the petitioner happens to witness in that and thereafter when the complainant went over the land, the petitioner informed that he has purchased the land and later on he came to know that Nageshwar Singh has sold the land to the petitioner on the same day.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16911 of 2019(3) dt.03-05-2019 2/2 Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has purchased the land prior to the sale deed executed by the son of the petitioner and there is no allegation that the petitioner has received consideration money from the complainant and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Heard learned A.P.P. and the learned counsel for the O.P.nop.2, who has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that knowing well, the petitioner has purchased the land from Nageshwar Singh as such he has not good intention from the very beginning, hence, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail. .

Having heard both sides and in view of the facts and circumstances, as stated above, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. With the aforesaid direction, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) chn/- U T