Sindhu Devi @ Sidu Devi And ANR v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.23499 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -201 Year- 2016 Thana -MADHEPURA COMPALINT CASE DistrictMADHEPURA ======================================================

1. Sindhu Devi @ Sidu Devi, Wife of Bablu Thakur,

2. Bablu Thakur, Son of Late Shiv Narayan Thakur, Both residents of Place- Gangapur (Doctor Tola), P.S. Ratwara (Alam Nagar), DistrictMadhepura. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Ram Chandra Thakur, Son of Late Ram Khelawan Thakur, resident of Ganapur Doctor Tola, P.S. Ratwara, (Alam Nagar), District- Madhepura. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amarendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mustaque Alam ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 13-06-2017 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional P.P. for the State.

The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with complaint Case No. 201 of 2016, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 417, 465, 379, 384 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegations levelled against the petitioners are with regard to grabing the land of the informant and others on the pretext of having got registered sale deed executed in the year 2016, whereafter altercation between the petitioners, informant and others appears to have taken place.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have validly purchased the land by a registered sale deed and they are in possession of the same. It has been further

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23499 of 2017 (2) dt.13-06-2017 2/2 submitted that the petitioners do not have any criminal antecedent. I find from perusal of the case record that there is a registered sale deed on record and even the learned trial court in the impugned order dated 04.04.2017 has observed that the instant case appears to be a case of civil dispute mainly and prima facie involvement of the petitioners are found as per documents available on the record. The learned trial court has further observed that the instant case may be good one for regular bail and not for anticipatory bail.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and more particularly since the instant case appears to be a case of civil dispute; I find that the instant case is fit for grant of anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, in the event of their arrest or surrender in the Court below within a period of four weeks from today, let the above named petitioners be enlarged on bail on furnishing bailbonds of Rs. 20,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura, in connection with Complaint Case No. 201 of 2016, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr. P. C. (Mohit Kumar Shah, J) BTiwary/- U T