Mahendra Kumar @ Mahendra Kuamr v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33510 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2019 Thana- MAGADH UNIVERSITY District- Gaya ====================================================== MAHENDRA KUMAR @ MAHENDRA KUAMR S/o Rabindra Kumar R/o village- Turi Kala, P.S.- Magadh University, District- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Surendra Kumar Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Satyendra Narayan Singh For the Informant :

Mr. Sheojee Mishra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 21-05-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Learned counsel for the informant is also present. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with M.U.P.S. Case No. 10 of 2019 for the offence registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that merely because he had identified the women who had transferred the land in favour of the vendee, the petitioner is facing implication. He thus, submits that the petitioner may be extended the privilege of bail.

Learned counsel for the Informant however, stiffly resisted the application for grant of anticipatory bail on the sole

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33510 of 2019(2) dt.21-05-2019 2/2 ground that the petitioner is wholly and fully responsible in arranging the lady who are said to be the imposters who had appeared before the registration office to depose as vendor and executed the deed of registration. It is further submitted that the matter did not end there and was perpetuated further by the petitioner by making the vendee transfer the land in his favour. Subsequently, it is under such circumstances that the petitioner's role cannot be ruled out and he may not be extended the privilege of bail.

Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case and there being clear involvement of the petitioner in view of the fact that he has subsequently got that piece of land transferred in his favour, I am not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. It is, accordingly, rejected. (Anjana Mishra, J) Jagdish/- U T