Masomat Muliya Devi And ORS. v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.29695 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1511 Year- 2013 Thana -SAHARSA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSAHARSA ======================================================

1. Masomat Muliya Devi W/o Late Bhupdeo Sharma, resident of villageBaijnathpur, O.P.- Bhim Nagar, P.S. Birpur, District- Supaul.

2. Umesh Sharma Wife of Late Keshi Sharma, resident of villageNarhaiya, P.S.- Basnahi, District- Saharsa.

3. Meena Devi wife of Umesh Sharma, resident of village Narhaiya, P.S. Basnahi, District- Saharsa.

.... .... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Arjun Sharma S/o Late Keshi Sharma, resident of village- Narhaiya, P.S. Basnahi, District- Saharsa.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Amarnath Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party : APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 27-07-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the complainant OP No. 2 and learned APP for the State.

2. When the matter is taken up learned counsel for the petitioners states that the anticipatory bail petition on behalf of the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are not being pressed, which accordingly stands dismissed. The provisional anticipatory bail granted to petitioner nos. 2 and 3 by order of this Court dated 29.07.2015 accordingly stands cancelled.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner no. 1 has been falsely implicated relating to a transaction which is purely civil in nature. The agreement sought to be relied upon by the complainant is not a

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29695 of 2015 (4) dt.27-07-2016 valid agreement in law. The complaint has been filed after an inordinate delay of about 70 days after obtaining certified copy of the sale deed executed by the petitioner no. 1 which itself cast serious doubt on the veracity of the accusations.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant OP No. 2 appears and opposes the anticipatory bail petition.

5. Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisional anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner no. 1 by order dated 29.07.2015 by this Court in connection with Complaint Case No. 1151 of 2013 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa is hereby confirmed.

(Vikash Jain, J) Chandran U T