Pramod Jha And ORS v. State Of Bihar And ANR

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11573 of 2017 (2) dt.29-03-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.11573 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -262 Year- 2014 Thana -SUGAULI DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================

1. Pramod Jha Son of Bindhyachal Jha

2. Indu Devi Wife of Pramod Jha

3. Gaurav Jha @ Gaurav Kumar Jha son of Pramod Jha All Resident of village- Chegaraha, P.S.- Sugauli, District- East Champaran.

4. Jitendra Jha son of Satyanarayan Jha, Resident of village- Karamawa, P.S. Sugauli, District- East Champaran.

5. Gangadhar Jha Son of Late Harbansh Jha, Resident of village- Behari, P.S.- Sikta, District- West Champaran.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

State of Bihar & Anr .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Shantanu Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 29-03-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Sugauli Police Station Case No. 262 of 2014/G.R. No. 3727 of 2014, disclosing offences under Sections 327, 379, 384, 420, 467, 468, 120B/34of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the entire prosecution story is purely relates to a civil dispute. The petitioner No.2 is full sister of the informant. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 are husband and son, respectively, of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11573 of 2017 (2) dt.29-03-2017 petitioner No.2 whereas the petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 are her relatives. In fact, Musmat Mahamaya Devi executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner No.2, who has taken care of the old mother after death of her father, therefore, the entire dispute arose between the parties. No case of impersonation is made out against the petitioners as the executant on her own and out of her sweet will has executed the sale deed in question. Hence, the petitioner also deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari in connection with Sugauli Police Station Case No. 262 of 2014, subject to the condition laid down under Section 438

(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) brajesh/- U T