Umesh Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28940 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-123 Year-2022 Thana- AKHODHIGOLA District- Rohtas ====================================================== 1.

UMESH SINGH Son of Ram Suresh Singh @ Ram Suresh Sing Resident of Chhapra, Chandi, Rohtas, Bihar - 821301.

2.

Anil Singh Son of Ram Suresh Singh @ Suresh Singh Resident of Chhapra, Chandi, Rohtas, Bihar - 821301.

3.

Suresh Singh @ Ram Suresh Singh Son of Ram Raj Singh Resident of Chhapra, Chandi, Rohtas, Bihar - 821301.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Priyajeet Pandey For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Jagdhar Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 19-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 506, 420 of the I.P.C.

3. Allegation against these petitioners is that they did not execute sale-deed in favour of the informant even after taking the consideration money in advance from the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. The dispute is purely of a civil nature. There is no allegation of misrepresentation against these petitioners. Moreover, during investigation in the supervision report, the case of the informant has been found to be untrue. Petitioners have no criminal

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28940 of 2023(4) dt.19-08-2023 2/2 antecedent.

5. However, learned counsel for the State and informant vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that process of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. has already been initiated against petitioner no. 1 and so far as petitioner no. 2 & 3 are concerned, they are named in the F.I.R. with specific allegation that these two petitioners in collusion with petitioner no. 1 cheated the informant.

6. Considering the nature of accusation and the fact that process of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. has already been initiated against petitioner no. 1, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioners is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) anay/- U T