Priya Ranjan Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42268 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-31 Year-2022 Thana- KHAJANCHI HAT District- Purnia ====================================================== PRIYA RANJAN SINGH S/O DHIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH Resident of Mohalla- Sipahi tola, P.S.- K. Hat, District- Purnea ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vijay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 09-01-2023 Heard the parties.

The petitioner apprehend his arrest in connection with K. Hat (Madhubani) P.S. Case no.31 of 2022 registered for the offence punishable under sections 327, 419, 467, 468, 471, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioner is that he in conspiracy with other co-accused has executed a forged sale deed. The petitioner is the identifier of the executor in the alleged forged sale deed.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and have committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. No such occurrence, in the manner as alleged, has ever taken place. There is no specific overt act against the petitioner. He further submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42268 of 2022(3) dt.09-01-2023 2/2 according to the prosecution case, co-accused Saurav Singh was renter in the portion of house of the informant and he executed forged sale deed of the aforesaid land and house of the informant in his name in companion with petitioner and others. The sale deed has been executed in the name of Saurav Singh by taking sufficient consideration amount. The petitioner is the identifier of the sale deed. He further submits that a title suit is also pending between the informant and the co-accused Saurav Singh. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail by submitting that the petitioner is named in the FIR and also the informant is an old lady aged about 82 years.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on his behalf is hereby rejected. This application is accordingly, dismissed.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) shikha/- U T