Patna High CourtCR. MISC./39728/2017dismissed

Dwarika Bhagat v. The State Of Bihar

2017-09-08Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.39728 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -80 Year- 2017 Thana -PANCHRUKHI District- SIWAN ====================================================== Dwarika Bhagat, son of late Kishun Bhagat, resident of Village: Makhnupur, P.S. Pachrukhi, District- Siwan.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. P.K.Lal, Advocate For the Informant : Mr. Vijay Bardhan Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nand Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 08-09-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

This is an application for bail in connection with Pachrukhi P.S. Case No. 80 of 2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 423, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegation against the petitioner is of selling land to the informant, which has already been acquired by Government, and petitioner has taken Rs.2.83 lakhs as consideration amount from the informant.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner along with other accused sold the land to the informant and sale-deed was executed. However, when measurement was done the informant came to know about acquisition of land by

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39728 of 2017 (4) dt.08-09-2017 2/2 National Highway Authority but petitioner has Land Possession Certificate and rent receipt in favour of informant is dated 12.3.2016, whereas the present case has been filed in the year 2017, which shows falsity of the prosecution case and petitioner is in custody since 25.6.2017.

Heard learned APP and learned counsel for the informant, who have opposed the prayer for bail stating that petitioner has cheated the informant.

Having heard both sides and in view of facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. However, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude it within a period of six months. Needless to say that both the parties will co-operate in conclusion of trial. With the above observation, this application is dismissed. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/- U