Rajendra Kumar Jha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29913 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-274 Year-2023 Thana- UDAKISHUNGANJ DistrictMadhepura ====================================================== 1.

Rajendra Kumar Jha S/o- Late Santoshi Jha R/o- Uda-Kishunganj, Ward no 4, PS- Uda-Kishunganj, Distt- Madhepura 2.

Ambed Bharti @ Abbu Yadav S/o- Late Satya Narayan Yadav R/o- VillagePipra Karauti, Ward no 2, PS- Uda-Kishunganj, Distt-Madhepura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Adv.

Mr.Ranjit Kumar Singh, Adv.

Ms. Diksha Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Kumar Veerendra Narayan, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 03-07-2024 Heard senior learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 472 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, accused Pawan Kumar Mishra has illegally executed sale deed in favour of the petitioners and sold the lands in question, which come under the informant's share to them.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are quite innocent and they have committed

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29913 of 2024(2) dt.03-07-2024 2/3 no offence. No such occurrence as alleged has ever taken place. Petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. The allegation levelled against the petitioners is totally false and based on concocted facts. From bare perusal of the prosecution case, it is evident that the names of the petitioners have been transpired in the present case merely because they are the purchasers of the respective lands in question, which reveals oblique purpose of the informant, who had himself disclosed that vendors of the land are Pawan Kumar Mishra, Maimun Nisha and Amila Khatoon.

It is further submitted that when the dispute arose for the land in question, the information was sought and furnished from which it transpired that the land in question does not belong to one Pawan Kumar Mishra. As such to avoid dispute, petitioner no.1 took Kebala in the year 2016 vide sale deed no. 5631 dated 22.10.2016 from the grand daughter of Saikh Fouki Mian, namely, Maimun Nisha and petitioner no.2 had also purchased the land from daughter-in-law of Saikh Fouki Mian, namely, Amila Khatoon vide sale deed No. 5632 in the year 2016 upon payment of consideration amount.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29913 of 2024(2) dt.03-07-2024 3/3 Suit No. 80/2023 in the learned Court below. Petitioners have no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as there is civil dispute between the parties, 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.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned lower Court where the case is pending/successor Court in connection with Udakishunganj P.S. Case No. 274 of 2023, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) divyanshi/- U T