Samphul Devi v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.37015 of 2017 (2) dt.10-08-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.37015 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -50 Year- 2017 Thana -GOVINDPUR District- NAWADA ====================================================== Samphul Devi Wife of Masudan Yadav Resident of Village- Jetsari, P.S.- Govindpur, District- Nawada.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sheo Kumar Prasad For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Pradeep Narain Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 10-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner apprehends arrest in Govindpur P.S. Case No. 50 of 2017 instituted for the offence under Sections-406, 420, 467, 504, 506, 468 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is alleged that one Sanjay Yadav took total amount of Rs. 4,00,000/ (four lacs) from the informant on the pretext of providing job to his son in police department. It is further alleged that he gave assurance to the informant that the job will be finalized after registering the land in favour of government. Thereafter, the son and the wife of the informant were called at registry office and got executed sale deed without allowing the informant to read the contents of the sale deed. It is further alleged that after execution of sale deed, co-accused Sanjay Yadav started to say that he has purchased the land of informant. He got the aforesaid sale deed forcibly executed in favour of his mother

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.37015 of 2017 (2) dt.10-08-2017 Samphul Devi.

In this manner, it is alleged that he committed cheating and fraud with the informant in conspiracy with this petitioner and got the sale deed executed in his favour.

In such circumstances, there is serious allegation against the co-accused Sanjay Yadav and this petitioner of committing fraud with the informant.

Therefore, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. The petitioner is directed to surrender in the court below and seek regular bail which will be considered by the court below and disposed off in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order.

(Sanjay Priya, J) A.K.V./- U T