Dhananjay Kumar Verma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52905 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-176 Year-2022 Thana- SIWAN MUFFASIL District- Siwan ====================================================== Dhananjay Kumar Verma, Son of Late Ram Kumar Verma, R/O Malviya Nagar, Mahadeva, P.S.- Mahadeva (Siwan Mufassil), Dist.- Siwan ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Kishore Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Satya Nand Shukla, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 16-05-2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the S.R. defects within two weeks after summer vacation. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner in the present case is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Siwan Mufassil (Mahadeva OP) P.S. Case No. 176 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 405 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. He has got no criminal antecedent.

As per the prosecution story, the petitioner and the informant had come to an agreement for sale of a piece of land measuring one kattha worth Rs.85,00,000/- for which the informant is said to have paid Rs.1,10,000/- in advance. Thereafter, the informant also sold one Kia Seltos Car to the petitioner worth Rs.18,37,000/-. On 05.12.2021, the informant

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52905 of 2022(9) dt.16-05-2023 2/2 handed over a sum of Rs.19,91,000/- to the petitioner. When the petitioner asked the informant to execute the sale deed for the said land after adjusting the advanced money paid by the informant, the informant agreed to the same. But after some time, it was found that there was some dispute over the ownership right of the said land and the petitioner also abused the informant on a mobile call. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned APP for the State has opposed the anticipatory bail of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is continuously changing his stand and is not relying even on the statements made before this Court.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon noticing that the petitioner is always changing his stand before this Court and is not coming clean even with regard to the statements which he has made before this Court whereunder he admits to have received Rs.19,91,000/-, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The prayer is refused. This application is dismissed. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) lekhi/- U T