Patna High CourtCR. MISC./54630/2015dismissed

Birendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-05-18Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.54630 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -200 Year- 2015 Thana -NAWADA District- NAWADA ====================================================== Birendra Kumar, Son of Dwarika Prasad, Resident of Mohalla - Sonarpatti, Station Road, Nawada, P.S. - Nawada, District - Nawada. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Gopal Prasad Vicky

3. Satyam Rupesh @ Raja Both 2 & 3 sons of Late Jagdish Prasad, Resident of Mohalla - Mirzapur, Station Road, Nawada, Present Address - Par Nawada, Gaya Road, P.S. - Nawada, District - Nawada. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.

For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Sakir Ahmad(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 18-05-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner filed this petition for cancellation of bail of Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 who were granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 13.05.2015 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 21464 of 2015 with Cr. Misc. No. 22024 of 2015.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that opposite parties after getting anticipatory bail made attempt to tamper with the evidence and threatened the petitioner and the witnesses, for that the petitioner filed informatory petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nawada.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.54630 of 2015 (2) dt.18-05-2016 2/2 It appears that opposite parties no. 2 and 3 have executed the deed of agreement to sell the land, but they did not execute the sale deed and that is why the case was lodged. Considering the facts aforesaid and the fact that the dispute is of civil nature, the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 were granted anticipatory bail. The trial is based on documentary evidence, therefore, I do not find any reason to cancel the bail bonds granted to opposite parties no. 2 and 3. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) KKSINHA/- U T