Saudagar Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43282 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-631 Year-2015 Thana- BUXAR COMPLAINT CASE DistrictBuxar ====================================================== 1.

SAUDAGAR PANDEY SON OF LATE SRIKRISHNA PANDEY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- CHINI MILL BUXAR, WARD NO. 34, PSBUXAR (T), DISTRICT- BUXAR 2.

RAMAN KUMAR MISHRA SON OF LATE SACHIDANAND MISHRA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- CHINI MILL BUXAR, WARD NO. 34, PSBUXAR (T), DISTRICT- BUXAR ... ... Petitioners.

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

UDAY SINGH @ UDAY PRATAP SINGH SON OF LATE YADU SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BHADAR, PS- SIKRAUL, DISTRICTBUXAR ... ... Opposite Partys.

====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ramakant Yadav, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Surendra Kumar, APP For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 08-05-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State assisted by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.631 (C) of 20215 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The petitioners, who are said to be brokers of land, got executed a sale deed from accused Hareram Pandey in favour of complainant's wife Nirmala Devi but neither the land

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43282 of 2023(6) dt.08-05-2024 2/2 was registered in her favour nor the money was returned.

4. The petitioners are quite innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case due to previous grudge. Nothing has happened in the manner as alleged by the complainant. The allegations levelled against the petitioners is general and omnibus in nature. Petitioner no.1 has 11 criminal antecedents, whereas petitioner no.2 has one criminal antecedents and all are for similar nature of the offence.

5. Per contra, learned APP for the State assisted by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioners is serious in nature, hence they do not deserve anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case and the criminal antecedents of the petitioners, I am not inclined to enlarge them on bail. The prayer for bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected. However, if the petitioners surrender before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seek regular bail the learned Court below would pass order in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U T