Pritesh Kumar @ Pritesh Kumar Thakur And ANR v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.11909 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -319 Year- 2006 Thana -MUZAFFARPUR SADAR DistrictMUZAFFARPUR ======================================================
1. Pritesh Kumar @ Pritesh Kumar Thakur, S/o Rishi Thakur
2. Mani Shankar Thakur, S/o Late Balram Thakur Both are Resident of Village-Madhubani, P.S.-Sadar, Distt. Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 10-04-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Sadar P.S. Case no.319 of 2006, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
The accusation is that in Title Suit No. 254 of 1992, decree was passed on the basis of compromise in the Lok Adalat. Accordingly, the informant and others came in possession over the land allotted in their respective shares and rent receipt was also issued. One Santosh Kumar executed sale deed on 10.11.2006 and 21.11.2006 relating to land under Khata No. 985, Khesra No. 2143 area 1 1⁄2 decimal, Khata No. 984, Khesra No. 2152, area 1 decimal, Khata No. 469, Khesra No. 2143, area 02 decimal, Khata No. 883, Khesra No.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11909 of 2017 (2) dt.10-04-2017 2/2 250, area 01 decimal and Khata No.664, Khesra No. 270, area 3 1⁄2 decimal and Khata No. 471, Khesra No. 2143, area 01 decimal in favour of Anjula Kumari illegally in conspiracy with Ashok Paswan, Md. Anwarul Haque and the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, in fact, the petitioners have no concerned either with the informant or his pattidar Santosh Kumar. Further submission is that both the petitioners have only put their signature as identifier of Santosh Kumar on the sale deed as such the petitioners have no beneficial of it. Moreover, the dispute as appears in the complaint petition is civil in nature. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioners, be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No.319 of 2006, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T