Dhananjay Kumar @ Dhananjay Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54809 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-95 Year-2020 Thana- RAXAUL District- East Champaran ====================================================== DHANANJAY KUMAR @ DHANANJAY SINGH Son of Shambhu Sharan Singh Resident of Village - Bara Harpur, P.S.- Harsidhi, Distt.- East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Abhishek Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Satyendra Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 25-01-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Raxaul P.S. Case No. 95 of 2020 instituted under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B), 34 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the prosecution story, the complainant has alleged that the accused persons made an agreement with him with respect to a land but due to non-payment of registration amount, the agreement never came into existence. However, later, the accused persons under conspiracy, executed 'Mahadanama' with the complainant in which payment details of Rs. 20 lakh was incorporated and thereafter, they sent a legal notice to the complainant. Upon receiving the said notice, they came to know about the said fraudulent act of the accuseds and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54809 of 2022(2) dt.25-01-2023 2/2 accordingly, the complaint was filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant had received 10 lakh rupees in cash and a cheque of Rs. 10 lakh was also given which was never encashed and despite that when they failed to execute the deed, a legal notice was sent and in the defence, they preferred this complaint. This Court has gone through the 'Mahadanama' and it seems that the allegation made in the complaint is not unfounded.

Taking into account the aforesaid facts, so far as the prayer of anticipatory bail is concerned, this court does not deem it fit to extend the same to the petitioner, which is accordingly rejected.

If the petitioner surrenders within four weeks from today, the concerned court shall take into account the submissions put forward in the bail application without being prejudiced by observation made herein and dispose it of expeditiously.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/ Ajay Singh/- U T