Pikol Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24714 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-563 Year-2023 Thana- HARNAUT District- Nalanda ====================================================== 1.

Pikol Chaudhary Son of Jaglal Chaudhary Resident of Village- Chero, Police Station- Harnaut (Chero O.P.), Dist.- Nalanda 2.

Sikol Chaudhary Son of Jaglal Chaudhary Resident of Village- Chero, Police Station- Harnaut (Chero O.P.), Dist.- Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 01-05-2024 Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners as also Mr. Durgesh Nandan, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, learned APP.

2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Harnaut (Chero O.P.) P.S. Case No. 563 of 2023 for the offence under sections 467, 468, 420, 120(B)/34 of the I.P.C. lodged on 04.10.2023 by the informant, Vipin Kumar.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that both the petitioners are brothers, after taking a huge amount, executed a piece of land details of which are available in the FIR itself. Further, allegation is that it happened on 18.08.2022 but from the next year, under a criminal conspiracy, through his father, the two petitioners got the same land registered in favour of Moni Kumari, wife of Rajesh Kumar through a registered deed.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24714 of 2024(2) dt.01-05-2024 2/2

4. The further allegation is that on 25.09.2023, when confronted, the nephew, started abusing and threatened of dire consequences unless Rs. 10 Lakhs is given. Having no alternative, the FIR.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners tried to defend the case of the petitioners by submitting that they had executed the deed in the year 2022 in favour of the informant, the second registered deed was executed by his father and they had no role to play in the matter.

6. Learned counsel for the informant submits that though they are trying to show their innocence, the fact remains that in the second registered deed, both have signed themselves as witnesses which has been executed by their father.

7. Learned APP also supported the submissions put forward by the learned counsel for the informant that it is clear case of criminal conspiracy.

8. In that background, the petitioners seek bail, the anticipatory bail application stands rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) kiran/- U T