Radhe Shyam Prasad Singh @ Radhe Shyam Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3246 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-609 Year-2019 Thana- SAHARSA COMPLAINT CASE District- Saharsa ====================================================== 1.

Radhe Shyam Prasad Singh @ Radhe Shyam Singh Son Of Ram Khelawan Sigh Resident Of Village - Dhaouli, P.S.- Patarghat, District - Saharsa, At Present Shivpuri Hakpara Ward No. 14, P.S. And Dist.- Saharsa 2.

Raman Kumar Singh Son Of Radhe Shyam Prasad Singh @ Radhe Shyam Singh Resident Of Village - Dhaouli, P.S.- Patarghat, District - Saharsa, At Present Shivpuri Hakpara Ward No. 14, P.S. And Dist.- Saharsa 3.

Rajesh Kumar Singh Son Of Radhe Shyam Prasad Singh @ Radhe Shyam Singh Resident Of Village - Dhaouli, P.S.- Patarghat, District - Saharsa, At Present Shivpuri Hakpara Ward No. 14, P.S. And Dist.- Saharsa ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pramod Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Awadhesh Kr. Singh Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 05-07-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to remove the defects within three weeks. In the eventuality of non-removal of defects within undertaken period, the office will place the matter before the Bench.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case due to land dispute. He submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3246 of 2021(11) dt.05-07-2022 2/2 dispute is purely civil in nature. He submits that petitioners have not committed forgery in the present case. He further submits that petitioners have no criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of this application.

Learned APP for the State and complainant oppose the prayer for bail and submit that the petitioners have filed the forged and fabricated document in the learned court below as well as before this Court.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected in connection with Complaint Case No. 609C/2019. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) devendra/- U T