Ram Jeevan Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35873 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-825 Year-2020 Thana- SUPAUL District- Supaul ====================================================== 1.

Ram Jeevan Pandey (Male), aged about 60 years, Son Of Late Chhathu Pandey, Resident Of Village- Malhani, Police Station- Supaul, DistrictSupaul. 2.

Ram Kumar Pandey (Male), aged about 49 years, Son Of Late Chhathu Pandey, Resident Of Village- Malhani, Police Station- Supaul, DistrictSupaul. ... ... Petitioners

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

Rajesh Kumar Jha, Son of Late Indranath Jha, Resident of Village Karnpur, Police Station Supaul, District- Supaul.

... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners :

Mr. Anil Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 24-05-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to remove the defects, as pointed out by the office, within a period of four weeks.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Supaul P.S. Case No. 825/2020 registered for the offence under Sections 420, 406 and 120(B) of the I.P.C. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the petitioners

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35873 of 2021(2) dt.24-05-2022 2/3 sold the land in favour of the mother of the informant. When the informant filed mutation case it got dismissed. It is alleged that the land was already sold prior to selling to the mother of the informant.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case. There is no allegation of tampering with the witnesses alleged against the petitioners. As per the prosecution, it is alleged that the petitioners have sold a piece of land in favour of the mother of the informant. Subsequently, there was dispute in respect of mutation of the land in question. Hence, the present case has been instituted. The matter relates to civil dispute.

On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioners above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of twelve weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Supaul, in connection with Supaul P.S.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35873 of 2021(2) dt.24-05-2022 3/3 Case No. 825/2020, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Sudhir Singh, J) U.K./- U T