← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./37949/2024dismissed

Sunil Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2024-09-20Mr. Justice Harish Kumar3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37949 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2023 Thana- AKHODHIGOLA District- Rohtas ====================================================== Sunil Kumar Singh, Son of Late Kameshwar Singh, Resident of Village - Brahaman Tola, Chhapra, P.S. - Akorhigola, District - Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Babu Nandan Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 20-09-2024 Heard Mr. Babu Nandan Prasad, learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The informant is represented through Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, learned Advocate.

2. The application for grant of bail to the petitioner, who is in custody in connection with Akorhigola P.S. Case No. 20 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Based upon the written report, the prosecution alleges that the informant purchased a piece of land from co-accused Suresh Singh and his two sons, namely, Umesh Singh and Anil Singh through a registered Sale Deed No. 149 dated 11.01.2022. However, this petitioner being a broker by committing forgery got the land transferred by another person by impersonating him as a land owner and fraudulently usurped Rs. 15,00,000/- from the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37949 of 2024(4) dt.20-09-2024 2/3 informant. It is further alleged that the petitioner falsely stated that he delivered Rs. 12,60,000/- to the elder son of land owner, namely, Umesh Singh.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that admittedly the petitioner has played a role of broker and the real owner of the land in question is said to be Suresh Singh and his two sons. Though, the allegation has been levelled that the petitioner has received the amount to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/- but the fact is otherwise that after receipt of the money, the same has been handed over to the real owner of the land. It is next contended that even if the allegation taken to be true, it appears to be predominantly civil in nature. Neither the petitioner is the witness to the sale deed nor he has anyhow instrumental in causing fraud to the informant. So far the land owners are concerned, they have been accorded anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 09.11.2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 70650 of 2023. Now, the petitioner has been incarcerated since 19.12.2023 and the investigation of the trial is complete.

5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State as well as the informant vehemently opposed the bail application of the petitioner and submit that a huge amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- has been transferred in the account of the petitioner and he by making impersonation got executed the sale deed through a

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37949 of 2024(4) dt.20-09-2024 3/3 different person, who was not even the owner of the land in question. It is also alleged that the complicity of the petitioner cannot be denied as he was the signatory and executed agreement to sale in favour of the informant. It is also contended that the petitioner bears two criminal antecedent of identical nature which suggests that he is involved in identical nature of crime.

6. Regard being had to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the specific nature of accusation and the fact that the money has been transferred to the account of the petitioner however, the petitioner is not in a position to explain that from the account of the petitioner as to whether the money has been given to the land owners or not? In view thereof, this court is not acceded to the prayer of the petitioner and accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

8. The petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of the charge.

(Harish Kumar, J) lata/- U T