Chandrachur Singh And ORS v. State Of Bihar And ANR
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45678 of 2015 (2) dt.15-10-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.45678 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1200 Year- 2014 Thana -SAHARSA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSAHARSA ======================================================
1. CHANDRACHUR SINGH, SON OF LATE BANARSI PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - SARDIHA, POLICE STATION - SIMRI BAKHTIYARPUR, DISTRICT - SAHARSA
2. SADANAND YADAV, SON OF ASHARFI YADAV
3. MANOJ YADAV, SON OF ASHARFI YADAV
4. LALO DEVI, WIFE OF SAROJ YADAV 2 TO 4, ARE RESIDENT OF NAWADA TOLA, KHORA BARTAR, POLICE STATION MAHISHI, DISTRICT - SAHARSA .... .... PETITIONER/S
VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. BENU DEVI, WIFE OF JASWANT SINGH, RESIDENT OF NAWADA TOLA, KHORA BARTAR, POLICE STATION MAHISHI, DISTRICT - SAHARSA .... .... OPPOSITE PARTY/S ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satish Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md.Iftekhar Mahmood(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 15-10-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 1200C of 2014 registered under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code.
The accusation of complainant/informant, Benu Devi, is that she purchased 3 Bigha 14 Kthas 17 Dhoor land from Satrughan Prasad Singh on 21.09.1999 and she came in possession and her name was mutated in Anchal Sirista, Government of Bihar but later
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45678 of 2015 (2) dt.15-10-2015 on Zamandi was cancelled, regarding which, Revision Petition No. 27 of 2004-05 already been filed by the complainant. In the meantime, petitioner no. 1 without any right title sold the land of the complainant/informant area 76.5 decimal to petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4 from the aforesaid land on 02.06.2014.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 is the father-in-law of the complainant/informant and has falsely been implicated in this case due to family dispute, in fact, the land as detailed in the complaint petition is the ancestral land of petitioner no. 1, which was sold to the petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4. Considering the aforesaid submissions, let the above named petitioners be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the J.M. Ist, Saharsa, in connection with Complaint Case No. 1200C of 2014, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- U T