Arvind Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40902 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1607 Year-2019 Thana- VAISALI COMPLAINT CASE District- Vaishali ====================================================== Arvind Kumar Singh, S/o Late Shivji Singh, R/o Village-Chakdumari, PostBakhari, Supayan P.S.-Rajapakar, District-Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Shishir Kumar Singh, S/o Chandeshwar Prasad Singh, R/o Village-Digghi Khurd (Chanakya Colony), P.S.-Hajipur Sadar, District-Vaishali ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs. Nirmala Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 20-08-2025 Heard Mr. Anuj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant and Mrs. Nirmala Kumari, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 1607 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case based on complaint petition 'in short' is that the complainant has purchased 117 decimals of land from the petitioner and others. The consideration amount was Rs. 12,00,000/-. After two years of purchase when the complainant went for mutation, he was informed that no such land is there.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40902 of 2025(3) dt.20-08-2025 2/2 has submitted that Annexure-2 is the photocopy of the sale deed which goes to show that the petitioner is there in the boundary and from perusal of the document annexed at page 38 of the petition, it also transpires that the said khesra contains 119 decimals of the land. It has also been submitted that in any view of the matter, this dispute is only regarding measurement of the land. Petitioner is in judicial custody since 28.04.2025.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State and leaned counsel for the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that as he was informed from the C.O. Office that no such land is there, he has filed this case.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned J.M. 1st Class, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Complaint Case No. 1607 of 2019.

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) lata/- U T