Sujeet Kumar Chaudhary @ Sujeet Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37985 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-155 Year-2021 Thana- ARA MUFFSIL District- Bhojpur ====================================================== SUJEET KUMAR CHAUDHARY @ SUJEET CHAUDHARY S/O ETAVARU CHAUDHARI R/o village- Chhotaki Sanadiya, P.S.- Ara Muffasil, District- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dineshwar Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Manoj Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 20-06-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Nawada P.S. Case No. 155 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ara.

The petitioner in association of other co-accused is said to have got 10 katha of the land of other mouza by committing fraud and forgery at the price of just Rs.1,80,000/- in place of one katha of land of other mouza which the informant had actually transferred.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37985 of 2021(4) dt.20-06-2022 2/2 that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in this case. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. The petitioner has no role in the alleged sale deed. The petitioner is neither purchaser not witness nor identifier of the sale deed. So far as mobile number is concerned, the petitioner has no knowledge about the same and by whom and for what purpose his mobile number has been mentioned in the sale deed. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that the considering the nature of allegation the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U T