Sanjay Sharma @ Sanjay Kr. Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.13761 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -30 Year- 2017 Thana -CHAPRA TOWN District- SARAN ====================================================== Sanjay Sharma @ Sanjay Kr. Sharma, son of late Prabhu Nath Sharma, resident of village/Mohalla Gandhi Chowk Garkha Road, P.S. Chapra Town, district Saran .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh, APP 138 For the informant : M/S Ram Binod Singh & Vipin Kumar Singh, Advs. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 30-03-2017 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the informant and the State.

This is a petition for grant of anticipatory bail for offence under Sections 420, 467, 465, 468, 469 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

From the genealogical table, it appears that the petitioner and the informant are descendants of late Hari Thakur. Hari Thakur was grand-father of the petitioner and he had purchased some property from the joint family fund. The said property was divided through Panchayati among three brothers of Ram Chandra Thakur, sons of Hari Thakur. One of the brothers, Shiv Pujan Thakur was father of the informant. Allegation is that the petitioner created a forged sale deed, said to be executed by Ram Chandra Thakur in respect of said property in favour of his son or the petitioner and on the basis of that sale deed the petitioner had taken loan from the Bank and the Bank is going to auction the entire property, including the share of the informant. Thus, the only allegation is that the petitioner has mortgaged entire property, including his

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13761 of 2017 (2) dt.30-03-2017 2/2 share as well as share of the informant.

If the case of partition through Panchayati is accepted as true, the informant is at liberty to show before the competent authority that the property was partitioned through Panchayati. Name of the informant or his father is already recorded in the revenue record and, thereafter, necessary action would be taken.

I am of the view that at this stage, there is no substantial material against the petitioner, hence, the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender, within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, be released on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with Chapra Town P.S. Case No. 30 of 2017 to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chapra, or successor Court, subject to the condition laid down under Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(Birendra Kumar, J) SA/- U √ T √