Suresh Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6971 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-82 Year-2020 Thana- RAJGIR District- Nalanda ====================================================== SURESH PRASAD S/O LATE BADRI MAHTO, R/O VILLAGE-NAHUB, P.S-RAJGIR, DISTRICT-NALANDA.

.. ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR.

.. ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Udbhav Mr. Mukesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rajesh Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 08-03-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the office within one month.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Rajgir P.S. Case No. 82 of 2020 registered for offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation mentioned in the FIR, the land of Indu Devi, the wife of the informant was transferred through forged sale deeds impersonating her. The allegation against the present petitioner is that he is the attesting witness of one of the forged sale deeds.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6971 of 2021(5) dt.08-03-2022 2/2 that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and he also expressed suspicion that the wife of the informant herself has executed the sale deeds and falsely implicated the present petitioner and other accused persons.

In paragraph 5, 6 and 7 of the case diary, the witnesses have stated that the land of Indu Devi was transferred through forged sale deeds by impersonating her. It is admitted fact that the present petitioner is one of the witnesses of the forged sale deeds, which have been executed by impersonation of Indu Devi. As such, the petitioner is the person, who identified the impostor in place of real person Indu Devi. He does not deserve the privileges for anticipatory bail and accordingly his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioners within the stipulated time mentioned hereinabove, failing which, the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey , J) Mahesh/- U T