Anita Bharti v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.33697 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -334 Year- 2015 Thana -NALANDA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictNALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF) ====================================================== Anita Bharti, Wife of Ranjit Kumar, resident of Village- Paharpura, P.S. Laheri, district- Nalanda.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Yugal Kishore Prasad, son of Late Karu Prasad, resident of MohallaMangla Nagar, Ramchandrapur, P.S.- Laheri District- Nalanda. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rishit Deo Kumar Singh, Adv. For opposite party no. 2 : Rajkishor Prasad, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Renuka Ratnakar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 19-10-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Complaint Case No. 334C/2015, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant named the petitioner along with other accused persons and alleged that they all came to his house negotiated with him for selling 8.5 decimals of land of R.S.P. No. 935, Khata No. 576 at the rate of Rs. 2,50,000/- per decimal. Ranjit Kumar is the husband of the petitioner who received Rs. 3,00,000/- and a deed of agreement to sell was executed on which Pratima Devi mother-in-law of the petitioner and Ranjit Kumar put their thumb impression and signature respectively, but the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33697 of 2016 (3) dt.19-10-2016 2/2 accused persons did not execute the sale deed nor return the money.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that of course, petitioner is named in the complaint petition, but no specific role is assigned to the petitioner. Petitioner is made accused in the case merely because she happens to be the wife of Ranjit Kumar who is said to have executed the deed of agreement to sell the land. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that petitioner was also accompanying other accused persons in the negotiation, but from the facts aforesaid it appears that the petitioner did not play any role in execution of deed of agreement nor received any money from the complainant.

Considering the facts aforesaid, the petitioner, in the event of her arrest or surrender before the 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 Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nalanda at Biharsharif in connection with Complaint Case No. 334(C)/2015, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr. P.C.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Vinita/- U T