Meena Devi And ORS v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.8901 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -144 Year- 2014 Thana -AMAS District- GAYA ======================================================
1. Meena Devi Wife of Anugrah Prasad
2. Sushila Devi Wife of Rajendra Prasad
3. Usha Kumari Wife of Mahendra Prasad
4. Anugrah Prasad Son of Late Ramdeo Mahto
5. Kunti Devi Wife of Kailash Prasad
6. Kailash Prasad Son of Late Mahavir Mahto
7. Mahendra Prasad Son of Late Ramdeo Mahto All resident of village - Bihargai, P.S. Paushanganj, District - Gaya .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nand Kumar (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 21-04-2015 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.
The petitioners are apprehending arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that the petitioners being under raiyat of the father-in-law of the informant, in connivance with the Consolidation Officer got their names recorded in the revenue records whereas the wife of the informant is the only heir of the original land holder, the father-in-law of the informant.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8901 of 2015 (2) dt.21-04-2015 2/3 It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of the Consolidation Officer as contained in Annexure-2 (series) dated 05.05.1995 suggests that the correction was made with regard to Katha of the land in question by competent Consolidation Officer. At earlier point of time, the petitioner no.4 filed Complaint Case No. 340 of 2014 when the crop from the land was robbed at the behest of the informant.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the informant that in connivance with the Consolidation Officer, in the revenue record, names of the petitioners were recorded as never any sale deed was executed by the father-in-law of the informant and for the same case two proceedings were disposed of by the consolidation authority with regard to two different persons.
Considering the fact that correction in the revenue record was made in the year 1995-96 when the FIR was lodged in the year 2014., let the above named petitioners be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of 12 weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of `10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8901 of 2015 (2) dt.21-04-2015 3/3 the satisfaction of the learned J.M., 1st Class, Sherghati at Gaya in connection with Amas P.S. Case No. 144 of 2014, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) Amrendra/- U T