Dhanik Lal Prasad v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.1164 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -2113 Year- 2014 Thana -BHOJPUR COMPLAINT CASE DistrictBHOJPUR ======================================================
1. Dhanik Lal Prasad, son of Harihar Prasad, resident of Village+PostBelanwa, P.S.- Bihiyan, District- Bhojpur. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Radha Mohan Ram @ Prabodh Kumar, son of Ramashish Das, VillageOsai Ganj, P.O.- Osai, P.S.- Bihiya, District- Bhojpur. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sachchida Nand Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, APP Mr. Arjun Prasad, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 3/ 03-02-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
The Petitioner seeks bail in Complaint Case No.2113-C of 2014/Tr. No.3745 of 2015 instituted for the offence under Section(s) 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 504 Indian Penal Code pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Arrah. It is alleged that one Shiv Nandan Prasad Gupta was the owner of land measuring 12.5 decimal appertaining to Khata No.147, Khesra No.1482 in village-Bihiya. The petitioner executed the sale deed for the consideration of rupees nine lacs sixty thousand in the name of Shiv Nandan Prasad Gupta. It is alleged that rupees five lacs thirty thousand was given at the time
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1164 of 2017 (3) dt.03-02-2017 2/2 of execution of the deed and rupees four lacs thirty thousand was given to the petitioner at the time of exchange of receipts. There is no denial by the petitioner that he has executed the sale deed in favour of the complainant in the name of Shiv Nandan Prasad Gupta after impersonating him. It is the case of the complainant that he has paid the entire consideration money of rupees nine lacs sixty thousand to the petitioner.
In such circumstances, this Court finds that serious offence has been committed by this petitioner in the registry office. He has executed the sale deed by impersonating himself as Shiv Nandan Prasad Gupta. The petitioner is really a daredevil person, since now a days photograph of the executants are taken on the sale deed. But still the petitioner has committed this offence.
Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.
Prayer is rejected.
(Sanjay Priya, J) JA/- U T