Patna High CourtCR. MISC./39574/2024rejected

Krishna Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

2024-10-26Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39574 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-611 Year-2022 Thana- NALANDA COMPLAINT CASE District- Nalanda ====================================================== Krishna Prasad son of Sukhdeo Ram Village- Palatpurar Ps- Manpur DistNalanda ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar 2.

Rakesh Kumar Sharma son of Shri Raj Kumar Sharma Village- Tungi PsDeepnagar Dist- Nalanda ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Raj Kishor Prasad, Advocate For the Complainant : Mr. Vishwanath Prasad, Advocate For the State :

Mr.Tapeshwar Sharma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 26-10-2024 Heard Mr. Raj Kishore Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vishwanath Prasad, learned counsel for the Complainant and Mr. Tapeshwar Sharma, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest connection with Complaint Case No. 611C of 2022, dated 30.08.2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Allegation against the petitioner is that he has received Rs. 11,25,000/- from the Complaint but not executed the land in favour of the complainant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39574 of 2024(5) dt.26-10-2024 2/2 the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that although there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he has received the amount in question from the complainant but he has not received any amount from the complainant.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant has filed a counter affidavit bringing on record the copy of the agreement which clearly suggests that the petitioner has received Rs. 11,25,000/- from the complainant for the land in question and thereafter the petitioner has executed the land in question to one another person namely Sunil Kumar Singh only on the ground that Sunil Kumar Singh has paid more consideration amount.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No. 611C of 2022 pending in the Court of A.C.J.M. 1, Hilsa, Nalanda.

7. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Ibrar//- U T