Surendra Kumar Sahay v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43934 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-751 Year-2021 Thana- BHAGALPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Surendra Kumar Sahay Son Of Late Sidhi Sharan Sahay R/O VillageKarhariya, P.S.- Banka, District- Banka, At Present Posted At Registry Office, Bhagalpur, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Sri Sukdeo Prasad Sah Son Of Late Parmeshwar Prasad Sah Resident Of A/P Mohalla- Bhudarmal Lane, Sona Patti, P.S.- Kotwali, DistrictBhagalpur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vivekanand Vivek For the Complainant : Mr.Diwakar Upadhyaya For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Arun Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 13-03-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. As per the complaint, all the accused persons including petitioner after hatching up conspiracy got executed the forged sale deed in favour of Sunita Agrawal and Ajit Kumar Agrawal by Sunil Kumar Sinha.

It is submitted that petitioner is not the beneficiary of the land in question. He is neither the seller nor purchaser of the said land. Petitioner being Clerk in the Registry Office has got

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43934 of 2022(3) dt.13-03-2023 2/2 no role in the entire episode and the only allegation against him is that he failed to discharge his duty, as the contents of the documents which was presented before the Registry office and previous details of land in question was not verified. Counsel for the informant however vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that it was the duty of petitioner to verify the documents related to the land in question which was not verified by him and due to laches on his part forged sale deed was executed.

Considering the facts aforesaid and nature of accusation, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest/surrender before the court below within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur in connection with Complaint Case No. 751 of 2021, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T