Uday Jaiswal And ORS v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.73335 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-385 Year-2018 Thana- GHORASAHAN District- East Champaran ======================================================
1. Uday Jaiswal, Son of Ajay Prasad Jaiswal, Resident of VillageShripur Tola Baswariya, P.S.- Ghorasahan, District- East Champaran.
2. Santosh Kumar, Son of Sonelal Rai, Resident of Village- Barwa Khurd, P.S.- Ghorasahan, District- East Champaran.
3. Subodh Kumar, Son of Rama Rai, Resident of Village- Bijbani, P.S.- Ghorasahan, District- East Champaran.
4. Aditya Kumar, Son of Hari Shankar Singh, Resident of VillageShripur Khas, P.S.- Ghorasahan, District- East Champaran.
5. Randhir Rai, Son of Dinanath Rai, Resident of VillageBhasandwa, P.S.- Ghorasahan, District- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ansul For the Opposite Party/s :
Mrs. Renu Kumari For the Informant :
Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 20-12-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State assisted by learned counsel appearing for the informant.
Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Ghorasahan P.S. Case No. 385/2018 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468,471, 420, 387, 504,506 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
The informant claims that co-accused Sudhakar Sharma illegally transferred his land in favour of the petitioners
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.73335 of 2018(2) dt.20-12-2018 2/3 by executing registered sale deed, though the aforesaid Sudhakar Sharma had lost civil litigation up to this Court. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners submits that as a matter of fact that there was land dispute between Sudharkar Sharma and the informant and, moreover, the petitioners are purchaser of the land in question for valid consideration and, therefore, no offence is made out against the petitioners.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer submitting that, admittedly, the petitioners are purchaser of the land of the informant and as a matter of fact, the petitioners in collusion with Sudhakar Sharma got executed forged sale deed in respect of lands of the informant and, therefore, the petitioners do not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as submissions of the parties and also keeping in mind that the petitioners are purchaser of the lands in question, this anticipatory bail petition is allowed and it is ordered that abovenamed petitioners, in the event of their arrest/ surrender within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order to the court concerned, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.73335 of 2018(2) dt.20-12-2018 3/3 Rs 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Motihari at East Champaran in Ghorasahan P.S. Case No. 385/2018 subject to conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) Spd/- U T