Shambhu Das v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56553 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-351 Year-2021 Thana- CHANPATIA District- West Champaran ====================================================== SHAMBHU DAS S/o Late Jamdar Das Resident of Chiran Chawk, Chanpatiya, Ward No. 9, P.S.- Chanpatiya, District- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar Jha, APP Mr.Sanjeev Kumar, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 09-11-2022 Heard the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove the defects within four weeks.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Chanpatiya P.S. Case No.351/2021, registered for the offence punishable u/s 420, 467, 468, 406, 376, 323, 504, 506 IPC. Allegedly, the petitioner is said to have developed illicit physical relationship with the informant on the pretext of marriage. Thereafter, he got entered his name as husband on the Aadhar Card of the informant and made her to sell her land and the sale amount of Rs.8 Lakhs was grabbed by the petitioner. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. He

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56553 of 2021(3) dt.09-11-2022 2/2 has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent. It is submitted that no offence u/s 376 IPC is made out against the petitioner. It is further submitted that there is a delay in filing of the F.I.R. At annexure-2, the sale deed dated 27.12.2020 is enclosed, in which the informant stated that her husband's name is Shambhu Das (petitioner). In another sale deed dated 10.12.2020 husband name is Raj Kishore Prasad.

Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that according to the F.I.R., it is clear that petitioner is involved in the present occurrence and there is direct allegation against him.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on his behalf is hereby rejected. This application is accordingly dismissed.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) pallavi/- U T