Nutan Kumari v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29397 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1651 Year-2018 Thana- PURNIA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPurnia ====================================================== 1.
NUTAN KUMARI Wife of Pankaj Kumar Nirala 2.
Pankaj Kumar Nirala Son of Ganesh Prasad Mahto @ Ganesh Prasad Both R/o Shanti Nagar, South of NH 107 Madhubani, P.S.- K.Hat, (Madhubani), District- Purnea.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Geeta Devi Wife of Ashok Kumar Das R/o Village- Amla Tola, Shanti Nagar, Ward No. 3, P.S.- K.Hat (Madhubani), District- Purnea. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. N.K.Agrawal Mr.Dr. Bidhu Ranjan For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Pawan Kumar Chaurasia Mr. Chandra Shekhar Anand ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 03-05-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Complaint Case No.1651 of 2018 registered under Sections 406, 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code.
The complainant alleged in sum and substance that both the petitioners-husband and wife gave proposal to purchase a piece of land of Khesra No.2753, Khata No.105, area 10 decimals at the rate of Rs.4,11,000/- per katha and received Rs.19,72,800/- through different modes. The complainant also
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29397 of 2019(2) dt.03-05-2019 2/3 gave Rs.1,00,000/- to meet the expenses of registration and spent Rs.35,000/- for filling soil on the land. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners of course received money from R.T.G.S. and other modes but the money was paid to the petitioners in lieu of payment of loan. The petitioners never agreed to sell a piece of land in favour of the complainant. The land does not belong to the petitioners. It is further submitted that complainant had acknowledged the receipt of borrowed money from the petitioners and the petitioners received money in lieu of the loan.
Hence, petitioner deserves anticipatory bail but the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that complainant never borrowed any money from the petitioners. The agreement is forged and fabricated. The signature of the complainant is forged on the agreement(Annexure-2). It is further submitted that payment of consideration amount was made through R.T.G.S. from the account of the complainant to the account of the petitioners.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29397 of 2019(2) dt.03-05-2019 3/3 claimed that he received money from the complainant in lieu of the money borrowed earlier.
Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegation made against the petitioners and the fact that dispute is of civil nature and even if there is a breach of contract for that the proper remedy would be a suit, let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea in connection with Complaint Case No.1651 of 2018, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Saurabh/- U T