Ravindra Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39053 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-568 Year-2018 Thana- MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== RAVINDRA SAHNI, Son of Late Nagina Sahni, Resident of VillageAkhtiyapur, P.S.- Karja, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.

Ravindra Thakur, Son of Late Bindeshwari Thakur, Resident of MohallaSoda Godom Laxmi Chowk, Barahampura, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Alok Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Raghwendra Pratap Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party No.2: Mr.Shishir Kumar, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 20-09-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the opposite party no.2. The petitioner in this case is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No.568 of 2018 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

By order dated 26.06.2019, the petitioner was called upon to make a statement as to whether he would be willing to pay back the amount which he has received from the informant promising the sale of land.

Mr. Alok Kumar, learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner would not be able to return

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39053 of 2019(3) dt.20-09-2019 2/3 the amount. Learned counsel has further submitted that the amount has been forfeited, however, on the queries raised by this Court as to whether there was any clause under the agreement empowering the petitioner to forfeit the amount paid by the informant for purchase of land, learned counsel has fairly accepted that in the agreement at least there is no such provision.

Learned counsel for the informant submits that the petitioner had received all the payments mostly through RTGS and account payee cheques on the pretext of sale of land. Informant was made to pay a sum of Rs.46 lacs approximately but then by playing fraud upon the informant the petitioner has sold the land to some other persons and misappropriated the entire amount. It is also submitted that in fact now it has transpired that the petitioner had already sold this land prior to receiving money from the informant. Learned counsel for the informant has, therefore, opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

In the given facts and circumstances of the case, this Court would not be willing to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. This application is dismissed. In case the petitioner surrenders in the court below

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39053 of 2019(3) dt.20-09-2019 3/3 within a period of four weeks from today and prays for regular bail, his prayer for regular bail shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by the order of this Court. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) arvind/- U T