Kanchan Bharti v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32146 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-660 Year-2022 Thana- PURNIA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPurnia ====================================================== Kanchan Bharti Wife Of Rajiv Kumar Singh Resident Of Village- Shantinagar Chunapur, P.S.- K. Hat(Madhubani), Dist- Purnea ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Mahmood Alam Son Of Siddik Resident Of Line Bazar, P.S.- K. Hat(Sahayak), Dist- Purnea ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ajit Kumar, APP For the O.P. No. 2 :
Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 20-11-2024 Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh , learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned APP for the State and Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party No.2.
2. Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with, Complaint Case No.660 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the allegation made in the complaint case, the petitioner, who allegedly purchased some land from one Bikram Kishore Chaudhary, along with some accused persons named therein, started obstructing the construction work, which
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32146 of 2024(4) dt.20-11-2024 2/3 was being carried out by the complainant, which was purchased by one Dr. Asad Imam from one Pramod Kumar Chaudhary. The complainant is the care-taker of the said land.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner had purchased the land pertaining to Khata no. 1275, Plot no.1323, 1527 from one Bikram Kishore Chaudhary and the said piece of plot was also sold by one Pramod Kumar Chaudhary vide sale deed no. 4938 of 2009 to Dr. Asad Imam. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has bought the plot vide sale deed no. 2736 on 18.12. 2019. The dispute between the parties is civil in nature and no case of 420 and 467 and 384 is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner is a lady and she has clean antecedent. On these grounds, petitioner seeks to be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant informs that the petitioner and the other named accused persons are land mafia and they tried to dispossess the complainant from the said land, by forcibly constructing boundaries and structure on the said piece of land, which was purchased by Dr. Asad Imam and as such, the petitioner has not only committed forgery but also, with a criminal intent, has tried
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32146 of 2024(4) dt.20-11-2024 3/3 to dispossess the complainant from the said land.
6. Learned APP for the State has also vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
7. Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well as, the matter being purely civil in nature, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on pre-arrest bail.
8. The learned District Court is directed to release the petitioner on pre-arrest bail, in the event of her arrest or surrender before the learned District Court within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea in connection with Complaint Case No.660 of 2022, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
9. The learned District Court is directed to verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if it is found that the petitioner is involved in some other cases as what has been stated in paragraph No.3 of the bail application, this order will automatically lose its force (Purnendu Singh, J) Harshita/- U T