Santosh Panjiyar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32280 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-401 Year-2019 Thana- ROSERA District- Samastipur ====================================================== SANTOSH PANJIYAR S/o Late Ram Dev Panjiyar, Resident of Village/Mohalla- Panjiyar Tola, Ward No. -11, P.S.- Rosera, DistrictSamastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Abhimanyu Sharma For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No. 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 16-05-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the office within one month.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Rosera P.S. Case No. 401 of 2019 registered for offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471/34 and 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation, the petitioner knowing that the disputed land was of the Mandir property, sold it to the different persons.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32280 of 2021(4) dt.16-05-2022 2/2 that the person, who has purchased the said land, has filed a title suit against the present petitioner. He has also submitted that one of the purchaser has been granted anticipatory bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court.

On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Shailendra Kumar has submitted that the purchaser himself was cheated and it was the reason that he was granted anticipatory bail. He has submitted further that not only the present case has been filed, but the person, who has been cheated, has also instituted a title suit against the petitioner and it has been admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner itself.

In these circumstances, I do not find it a fit case for anticipatory bail and accordingly the prayer for anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioner is hereby rejected. Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioners within the stipulated time mentioned hereinabove, failing which, the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Mahesh/- U T