Md. Kasim Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39055 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-161 Year-2021 Thana- BARURAJ District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== MD. KASIM ANSARI SON OF LATE ABBAS ANSARI R/O VILLAGEPARSAUNI NATH, P.S.- BARURAJ, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

MUNNA KUMAR SON OF SURENDRA SAH R/O VILLAGE- SISWAN @ SISWA, P.S.- BARURAJ, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Yugal Kishore, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Kumar Ranjit Ranjan, APP Mr.Sunil Kumar Pandey, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 02-05-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Baruraj P.S. Case No.161/2021, registered for the offence punishable u/s 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC. As per the prosecution case, the informant purchased 4 decimal of land from the petitioner after paying total sale consideration amount of Rs.3 Lacs. Aunt of the informant also purchased 2 decimal of land from the petitioner after paying Rs.1,60,000/-. It is alleged that when the petitioner went for mutation, he came to know that the said land has already been sole in year 1978 by the family member of the petitioner and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39055 of 2022(6) dt.02-05-2023 2/2 some portion has been acquired by the Government. When the informant asked to refund the amount of both lands, petitioner refused to refund the same.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. No such occurrence, in the manner as alleged, has ever taken place. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that when he informed his client for return of the said money, as agreed earlier, no positive response was given. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on his behalf is hereby rejected. This application is accordingly dismissed.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) pallavi/- U T