Naru Prasad @ Naresh Kapar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48556 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-977 Year-2022 Thana- MUZAFFARPUR TOWN DistrictMuzaffarpur ====================================================== 1.

NARU PRASAD @ NARESH KAPAR Son of Late Bhikha Kapar Resident of village - Ayodhya Prasad Lane, Pandey Gali, P.S. - Nagar, Distt. - Muzaffarpur 2.

Awadhesh Kumar Son of Sri Gonour Sah Resident of village - Muraul, P.S. - Maniyari, Distt. - Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Jai Prakash Verma For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs. Pushpa Sinha.1 :

Mr. Md. Helal Ahmad :

Mr. Rupesh Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 24-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the learned court below.

3. As per the prosecution case, petitioners are said to have grabbed money of Rs.17,50,000/- for sale of land but they did not execute sale deed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48556 of 2023(2) dt.24-08-2023 2/2 case. He further submits that there is purely civil dispute between the parties. He submits that there is no specific overt act against the petitioners. He further submits that in view of the agreement for sale dated 24.09.2020 the informant should have make pyament of balance consideration amount within 31.03.2021 and he should get the registry done in his favour or in the name of his nominated person but the informant has failed to comply the condition of agreement of sale. He further submits that petitioners have got criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of the bail application.

5. Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail application and submitted that the allegation levelled as the petitioners is serious in nature. Hence, they do not deserve anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the fact that petitioners have similar nature of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail in connection with Town P.S. Case No. 977 of 2022. Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) ajay/- U T