Binay Kumar Paswan @ Vinay Kumar Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35568 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2025 Thana- SIKANDRA District- Jamui ====================================================== Binay Kumar Paswan @ Vinay Kumar Paswan, S/o Late Bhola Paswan, R/o Vill.- Bardih, P.S. - Sikandra, Distt.- Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Ramjee @ Ramjee Kumar, S/o Shrikrishna Ravidas, R/o Vill.- Markama tola Sudampur, P.S.- Lachhuar, Distt.- Jamui ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Prakash Mahto, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Renuka Ratnakar (App125) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 20-06-2025 Heard Mr. Prakash Mahto, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Renuka Ratnakar, learned APP for the State.

2. The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Sikandra P.S. Case No.19 of 2025 instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 120(2), 115(2), 352 and 351(2) of B.N.S.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the informant and the petitioner have executed an agreement to sell with respect to the land described in the F.I.R. It is further alleged that as a consideration amount of the said land Rs. 25 lakhs was handed over to Binay Paswan. It is further alleged that for evading tax, the petitioner entered only five lakhs rupees as a consideration amount

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35568 of 2025(2) dt.20-06-2025 2/2 in the sale deed. After the execution of the deed when the informant went for mutation he came to know that this land was already sold.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the agreement and sale deed was executed in favour of the brother of the informant whereas case has been filed by Ramji Kumar, the brother of the person in whose favour the sale deed was executed. Petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition.

5. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. From perusal of the record this much is clear that a sale deed was executed by the petitioner in favour of Ramji Kumar and Lakshman Kumar and it is also pertinent to note that the land has already been sold. It is a clear cut case of cheating.

7. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and, as such, his application for bail is rejected. (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) lata/- U T