Patna High CourtCR. MISC./45186/2017rejected

Sanjay Kumar And ANR v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2017-11-21Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45186 of 2017 (3) dt.21-11-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.45186 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -775 Year- 2016 Thana -MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE DistrictMUZAFFARPUR ======================================================

1. Sanjay Kumar Son of late Jyoti Narayan Singh

2. Hira Devi Wife of Sanjay Kumar Both are resident of VillageHarishankar Maniyari, P.S. Maniyari, District- Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Mantosh Kumar Son of Ram Lal Sah Resident of Village- sherpur Kayasth Tola, P.S. Sadar, District- Muzaffarpur. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Madan Kumar, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 21-11-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Trail No. 3296 of 2016 arising out of Complaint Case No. 775 of 2016, disclosing offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners, who are of clean antecedent, are innocent and have not committed any offence. In fact, the petitioners are ready to pay the admitted dues which is to the tune of Rs. 75,000/-, to the complainant. Hence, the petitioners deserve the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45186 of 2017 (3) dt.21-11-2017 privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has submitted that petitioners after taking the consideration amount of Rs. 9,25,000/- against a piece of land, which does not belong to them, have falsely executed a sale deed in favour of the O.P. No.2. The petitioners are not ready to return the aforesaid amount in question. Earlier, this case has been sent for mediation but the mediation could not be succeeded at the instance of the petitioners.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail of these petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of these petitioners is rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J.) brajesh/- U T