Ravi Bhushan Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40985 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2784 Year-2013 Thana- MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== RAVI BHUSHAN SINGH, Son of Radhe Shyam Singh, Resident of Mauza Rasulpur Wajid, P.S.- Ahiyapur, Distt- Muzaffarpur, Bihar ... Petitioner
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
KANTI DEVI, W/o Ramraji Sah, Resident of Mauza Gorigama, P.S.- Minapur, Distt- Muzaffarpur ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner :
Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Adv. with M/s Punit Kumar & Dharneshwar Vashist, Advs.
For the Opposite Parties :
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 29-07-2021 As prayed for, through video conferencing, let the learned counsel for the petitioner remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office vide it's note, dated 29.12.2020, within four weeks of starting of the Court proceeding in physical mode properly.
Heard the parties through video conferencing. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 2784 of 2013, registered under Sections 420, 406, 468, 487 and 488 of the Indian Penal Code. The accusation is that plot no. 93, area 4.25 decimals of khata no. 83 of village Harpur Bakhri, Anchal Musahri, is in the possession of complainant/opposite party no. 2, Kanti Devi. The complainant/opposite party no. 2 asked to several persons
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40985 of 2020(2) dt.29-07-2021 2/3 for selling the said land, then, Vijay Shahi and Ravi Bhushan Singh (petitioner) became ready to purchase the land and on negotiation the price of the land fixed at Rs.14,88,000/-. Accordingly, on 27.07.2013 the complainant/opposite party no. 2 went at Registry Office, Muzaffarpur, and it has been decided that the whole consideration amount will be paid at the time of obtaining the receipt, accordingly, the sale deed was drafted, but, in the sale deed it is detailed that Rs.9,88,000/- has been received by the complainant/opposite party no. 2 and the remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was shown to be paid at the time of Takabazul Raseed Badlain, thereafter, the sale deed was executed and without reading the contents of the document, the sale deed was executed, but, later on the complainant/opposite party no. 2 came to know about the fact detailed in the sale deed.
Submission is that in fact, sale deed was executed by the complainant/opposite party no. 2 on fixing the consideration amount of Rs.14,88,000/-, but, other person offered to pay Rs.20,00,000/- due to that reason, the complainant/opposite party no. 2 has filed the present case with ulterior motive. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40985 of 2020(2) dt.29-07-2021 3/3 case, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest/surrender, within a period of four weeks from today, in connection with Complaint Case No. 2784 of 2013 shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, or the successor Court subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Criminal Procedure Code.
(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Shamshad/- U T