Raj Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55478 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-257 Year-2020 Thana- RANIYATALAB District- Patna ====================================================== 1.

Raj Kumar Singh S/O Ram Eqbal Singh R/O Village-Patoot, P.S- Ranitalab, District-Patna.

2.

Kamal Deo Singh S/O Ram Eqbal Singh R/O Village-Patoot, P.S- Ranitalab, District-Patna.

3.

Ujjawal Kumar S/O Raj Kumar Singh R/O Village-Patoot, P.S- Ranitalab, District-Patna.

4.

Shubham Kumar S/O Raj Kumar Singh R/O Village-Patoot, P.S- Ranitalab, District-Patna.

5.

Deepak Kumar S/O Kamal Deo Singh R/O Village-Patoot, P.S- Ranitalab, District-Patna.

6.

Sanni Kumar S/O Mantu Kumar R/O Village-Patoot, P.S- Ranitalab, District-Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr.Samrendra Kumar Jha, Advocate For the State :

Mrs.Madhuri Lata, APP For the informant :

Mr.Patanjali Rishi, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 14-12-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant. Counsel for the petitioners is directed to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, within a period of eight weeks.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Ranitalab P.S. case No.257 of 2020 registered under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 504, 120B of the Indian

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55478 of 2021(2) dt.14-12-2021 2/3 Penal Code.

Allegation is that the petitioners along with one Mantu Kumar prepared forged documents and tried to grab the land of the informant.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioner Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 have got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioners. The petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case. As per the allegation, one Mantu Kumar had mortgaged the land in question to one Hitesh Kumar. The informant claims his share in the said land in question. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are sibling of Mantu Kumar and rest of the accused persons are also agnates of the said Mantu Kumar. It is further pointed out that the informant of this case is also agnate of the accused persons. The matter relates to family dispute in respect of the property. A proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. is also pending between the parties. The matter relates to civil dispute.

On behalf of the State and learned counsel for the informant, it is submitted that the petitioner is named in the complaint case/F.I.R. Counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55478 of 2021(2) dt.14-12-2021 3/3 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of twelve weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M. II, Danapur in connection with Ranitalab P.S. case No.257/2020, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Sudhir Singh, J) Narendra/- U T