Majemdra Tanti @ Mahendra Tanti v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32132 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-699 Year-2022 Thana- MUNGER COMPLAINT CASE District- Munger ====================================================== 1.

MAJEMDRA TANTI @ MAHENDRA TANTI SON OF LATE MASUDI TANTI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SANGRAMPUR, PSSANGRAMPUR, DISTT- MUNGER 2.

CHHOTU KUMAR SON OF MAHENDRA TANTI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SANGRAMPUR, PS- SANGRAMPUR, DISTT- MUNGER ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

RAM NANDAN KUMAR SON OF JAGDISH TANTI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SANGRAMPUR PS- SANGRAMPUR, DISTT- MUNGER ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Nakul Kumar Jamuar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Zainul Abedin, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 26-02-2024

1. The prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner no. 1 Majemdra Tanti @ Mahendra Tanti has already been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 21.07.2023.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner no. 2, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant/opposite party no. 2.

3. The petitioner no. 2 apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 420, 468 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner no. 2, at the outset, submits that the dispute is purely civil to which a

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32132 of 2023(4) dt.26-02-2024 2/3 criminal colour has been given. It is further submitted that the sale deed in respect of the land in question was executed in favour of the complainant/opposite party no. 2 by Mahendra Tanti. It is next submitted that said Mahendra Tanti is father of Chhotu Kumar (petitioner no. 2). It is also submitted that the sale deed was executed in the year 2017 and the present complaint case came to be instituted in the year 2022 which amply demonstrates that for some ulterior reason, the complaint case has been instituted with an allegation that the land which was executed by Mahendra Tanti does not exist. It is thus submitted that if the land did not exist when the sale deed was executed nothing prevented the complainant/opposite party no.

2 from approaching the police or the Court in time but the fact that complaint case came to be instituted five years after the execution of the sale deed casts an aspersion on the case of the complainant/opposite party no. 2. It is further submitted that the complainant/opposite party no. 2 is only trying to pressurize the accused persons including the petitioner no. 2 to sell his land which is near the land which has been purchased by the complainant/opposite party no. 2. It is next submitted that if what has been alleged in the complaint case is true in that event the petitioner no.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32132 of 2023(4) dt.26-02-2024 3/3 civil jurisdiction.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant/opposite party no. 2 opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner no. 2 but are not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner no. 2 that the complaint case came to be instituted five years after execution of the sale deed.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner no. 2, the petitioner no. 2 abovenamed, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Complaint Case No. 699C of 2022, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T