Indu Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53348 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-345 Year-2017 Thana- PATLIPUTRA District- Patna ====================================================== Indu Devi, Wife of Arun Prasad, Resident of Hazari, P.S. - Hilsa, District - Nalanda, At present resident of Rajapur Mainpura (Babhan Toli), renter in the House of Shiv Nandan Rai, P.S. - Paltiputra, District - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kameshwar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Smt. Suman Kumari Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 08-03-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case as per the written report of Ashok Kumar dated 15.10.2017 submitted to the Station House Officer of Patliputra Police Station is to the effect that the informant Ashok Kumar entered into an agreement with the coaccused Arun Kumar and his wife, Indu Devi, the petitioner, on 30.01.2017 for purchase of nine dhurs of land appertaining to Thana No.2, Tauzi No. 18244/5237, Khata No. 435, Survey Plot No. 1702 part, though the land was recorded in the name of the husband of the petitioner, co-accused Arun Prasad, for consideration amount of Rs.13,50,000/-. Subsequently, the total

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53348 of 2018(6) dt.08-03-2019 2/3 consideration amount of Rs.13,50,000/- was paid either both cheque and cash but neither the sale deed was executed nor the money was returned by the accused persons including the petitioner.

Today a supplementary affidavit has been filed duly signed by the informant and the petitioner to the effect that the issued has been compromised and the sale deed for the land in question has already been executed.

It is submitted by Mr.Raju Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue has been compromised and coaccused. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the informant does not controvert the contention of Mr. Raju Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and he is not opposing the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

Considering the present stand of the parties, let the above named petitioner be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of twelve weeks from today, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-XII, Patna in connection with Patna P.S. Case No. Patliputra P.S. Case No. 345 of 2017,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53348 of 2018(6) dt.08-03-2019 3/3 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) DKS/- U T