Dinesh Prasad Gupta v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22498 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-388 Year-2015 Thana- MADHUBAN District- East Champaran ====================================================== Dinesh Prasad Gupta Son of Late Chhathu Sah, Resident of villageMadhuban P.S.- Madhuban, District- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Umesh Chandra Verma For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Dilip Kumar No. 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 24-07-2019 Heard both sides.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Madhuban P.S. Case No.388 of 2015 registered under Sections 341, 323, 379, 406, 420, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was earlier allowed to be withdrawn after some argument. The petitioner again moved this court for grant of anticipatory bail. It is submitted that the dispute is of civil nature.
From perusal of records, it appears that the petitioner received Rs.8,11,000/- from the informant through bank draft and executed a sale deed with regard to the disputed land although the petitioner has got no title over the disputed land. Earlier the petitioner had agreed to return the money to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22498 of 2019(3) dt.24-07-2019 2/2 informant but when he failed to return the amount to the informant, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was allowed to be withdrawn after some argument but even thereafter the petitioner did not surrender in the court below and evaded his appearance for more than two and half years. Having considered the facts that it was the petitioner, who played fraud upon the informant and took Rs.8,11,000/- for executing sale deed of his own land but the petitioner inserted the disputed land in the sale deed, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Harish/- U T