Mary Alphonsa And ORS v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.24131 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -895 Year- 2014 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPATNA ======================================================
1. Mary Alphonsa, D/o Late Anthony Chako, R/o 109, Patliputra Colony, P.S. - Patliputra, District - Patna.
2. Sudhir Singh @ Sudhir Kumar Singh, S/o Late Bindeshwari Singh R/o Don Bosco School, P.S. - Patliputra, District - Patna.
3. Ravindra Singh, S/o Late Bindeshwar Singh, R/o A.N. College, Boring Road, Aadri Gali, Near Petrol Pump, P.S. - Patliputra, District - Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Arun Singh, S/o Late Kameshwar Singh, Resident of Village - Alawalpur, P.S. - Gaurichak, District - Patna .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance:
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjaya Nath Tiwari, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar III, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 16-08-2016 Heard both sides.
The petitioners, namely, Mary Alphonsa, Sudhir Singh @ Sudhir Kumar Singh and Ravindra Singh, apprehend their arrest in Complaint Case No. 895(C) of 2014 registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Arun Singh, the informant, alleged that petitioner nos. 2 and 3, namely, Sudhir Singh @ Sudhir Kumar Singh and Ravindra Singh, approached him for purchasing a piece of land in the name of petitioner no. 1, Mary Alphonsa. They took his signature but did not read over the contents of the deed and instead of 21⁄2 Kathas of land, they prepared deed of more than 21⁄2 Kathas
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24131 of 2016 (3) dt.16-08-2016 2/3 of land. It is submitted that the petitioner no. 1 filed an informatory petition (Annexure-2) on 23.03.2014 whereas the complaint petition was filed on 21.07.2014. In the informatory petition, the petitioner no. 1 stated that she made payment of Rs. 13,30,000/- through cheques and thereafter the complainant Arun Singh executed a bond accepting Rs. 13,30,000/- and undertook to execute the sale deed. It is submitted that the petitioners did not play any fraud.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the petitioners fraudulently got the sale deed executed by the complainant with regard to 4 Kathas of land. It appears that now-a-days the sale deed is executed in presence of the Registrar and only after acceptance of full and final payment, the sale deed is executed. The petitioner no. 1 Mary Alphonsa paid Rs. 13,30,000/- to the complainant through cheques. The petitioner no. 1 filed the informatory petition much earlier to the complaint petition filed by the complainant. Considering the facts aforesaid, the above named petitioners, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order, are directed to be
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24131 of 2016 (3) dt.16-08-2016 3/3 enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M., Patna City, Patna in Complaint Case No. 895(C) of 2014, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Dilip/- U T