Umashankar Singh And ANR v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.41164 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1549 Year- 2012 Thana -MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- MUZAFFARPUR ======================================================
1. Umashankar Singh, son of Late Mandhata Singh
2. Priya Ranjan @ Tuttu, son of Umashankar Singh, All resident of Village - Sain Brijlal, P.S. Kanti, District - Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shishir Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umeshlal Verma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 11-03-2015 At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that so far as the case of petitioner no.1 Umashankar Singh is concerned, it has become infructuous in view of the fact that he has already been taken into custody. This application as against petitioner no.1 Umashankar Singh is, accordingly, dismissed as having become infructuous.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State.
Petitioner no.2 Priya Ranjan @ Tuttu is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.1549 of 2012 (Tr. No.2737 of 2014) for allegedly having
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41164 of 2014 (3) dt.11-03-2015 2/3 committed the offences under Sections 343, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
With regard to petitioner no.2, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant and petitioner no.1 are uncle and nephew and since there is pending litigation between them before the D.C.L.R., bearing Case No.66 of 2012, with regard to taking possession of the lands, the complainant in order to prevent and preclude the petitioner from the same has filed the present false case alleging that the petitioner and his father have prepared a forged document with regard to the land with the object to grab the same. It is further submitted that not a single chit of paper has been produced by the complainant in order to show that any such forged document has been prepared or used for the purposes of grabbing the land.
Considering the aforementioned submissions and that it appears to be out and out a land dispute between the parties, let petitioner no.2,namely, Priya Ranjan @ Tuttu, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41164 of 2014 (3) dt.11-03-2015 3/3 two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, (West) Muzaffarpur, in connection with Complaint Case No.1549 of 2012 (Tr. No.2737 of 2014), subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Anjana Mishra, J) PNM U T