Satyendra Kumar @ Rajeev Ranjan v. State Of Bihar And ANR

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17667 of 2018 (2) dt.05-04-2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.17667 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -457 Year- 2013 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPATNA ======================================================

1. Satyendra Kumar @ Rajeev Ranjan, Son of Late Chandeshwar Prasad, Resident of Mohalla- Gabhtal Akhara Road, Danapur, Police StationDanapur, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Sumit Kumar Verma, Son of Late Surendra Kumar @ Satyapal Verma, Permanent resident of Gabhtal Akhara Road, P.S.- Danapur, District- Patna, at present residing at Mohalla- Nakhas Pind, P.O.- Begumpur, P.S.- Malsalami, Patna City, District- Patna.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Lakshmi Kant Sharma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pranav Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 05-04-2018 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Complaint Case No.457(c) of 2013 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120B, 209 and 210 of the Indian Penal Code.

The complainant alleged that Surendra Kumar @ Satyapal Verma was one of the sons of Late Chandeshwar Prasad but suppressing this fact the accused persons filed Title Suit No.112 of 1986 arraying his father and other brothers as defendant with his mother but name of Surendra Kumar @ Satyapal Verma was not mentioned. The partition suit was compromised. It is

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17667 of 2018 (2) dt.05-04-2018 further alleged that petitioner and others have made an attempt by making interpolation to deprive the complainant to get his share as the petitioner did not make his father as defendant in the partition suit.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is out and out a civil dispute. On similar facts, the brother of the petitioner has already been granted anticipatory bail by order dated 12.02.2018 passed in Cr. Misc. No.59408 of 2017. Considering the facts aforesaid, the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur in connection with Complaint Case No.457(c) of 2013, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Saurabh/- U T