Sukhdeo Yadav @ Shukdev Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24131 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-603 Year-2022 Thana- GAYA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictGaya ====================================================== SUKHDEO YADAV @ SHUKDEV YADAV Son of Sri Parmeshwar Yadav Resident of Village - Kusha Bija, P.S.- Dobhi, District - Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Hulshi Devi Wife of Late Sahdeo Yadav D/o Late Tetar Yadav, Resident of Village - Mahkar, Post - Amarut, P.S.- Dobhi, District - Gaya. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 06-07-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Complaint Case No. 603 of 2022 of Sherghati (Gaya) registered for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned J.M.-1st Class, Sherghati (Gaya).
Allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other accused persons has taken thumb impression of the informant/complainant on some papers and they have got forged deed executed in their favour without giving any money. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24131 of 2023(2) dt.06-07-2023 2/2 petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He submits that the complainant and her son have virtually cheated the petitioner and have misappropriated his all the consideration amount as mentioned in the sale deed. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of the bail application.
Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioner is also involved in the present case.
Considering the facts and circumstances of case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.
(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) anand/- U T