Ranjeet Kumar Yadav @ Ranjeet Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42258 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1607 Year-2017 Thana- BHAGALPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== RANJEET KUMAR YADAV @ RANJEET YADAV Son of Ram Naresh Yadav Resident of Village - Babhangama, P.S.- Kahalgaon, Distt - Bhagalpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.

Vinod Yadav Son of Amrit Yadav Resident of Village - Mahadeopur, P.O. - Lagma Hat, P.S.- Kahalgaon, Distt - Bhagalpur. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Tarun Prasad Mandal For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 09-07-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.1607 of 2017 registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

The accusation is that the petitioner, who is son-inlaw of the brother of the father of the opposite party no.2, got executed the sale deed in respect of the land of half share of his father-in-law measuring an area of 83⁄4 decimal. Thereafter, the petitioner wrongly wrote 14 decimal land in place of 83⁄4 decimal land on the agreement paper and got prepared the paper for agreement to sale on taking Rs.7,11,000/- from the opposite

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42258 of 2019(2) dt.09-07-2019 2/3 party no.2 with an assurance to execute the sale deed. When the sale deed was not executed in favour of the opposite party no.2 by the petitioner, panchayati was arranged but the petitioner did not obey the decision of the panchayati. While the land is in possession of the opposite party no.2 but the sale deed in respect of the land in question has not been executed in favour of the opposite party no.2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, the opposite party no.2 is the son of the cousin father-inlaw of the petitioner and only to grab the land of the father-inlaw of the petitioner, the opposite party no.2 has lodged this complaint case. Moreover, the dispute, as detailed in the complaint petition, is of civil in nature. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

Having considered the facts and the circumstances of the case, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender by him within six weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Bhagalpur, in connection with Complaint Case No.1607 of 2017, subject to the conditions laid down under

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42258 of 2019(2) dt.09-07-2019 3/3 Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) P.S./- U T