Sultan Ahmad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.45782 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -240 Year- 2012 Thana -BIHARSHARIF District- NALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF) ======================================================

1. Sultan Ahmad Son of Late Abdul Wadood, Resident of Mohalla - Khanquah, P.S. - Laheri, District- Nalanda.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Suraj Deo Prasad, S/o- Late Ram Pratap, Village Jahana, P.S.- Bind. District- Nalanda, at present Anand Nagar, Dekulighat, P.S.- Bihar, District- Nalanda.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nilesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kanhaiya Kishore(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 19-05-2015 Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur for the petitioner, Mr. Mritunjay Prasad Singh for the O.P. No. 2 and Mr. Ram Chandra Singh , APP for the State.

Petitioner apprehends his arrest in Bihar P.S. Case No. 240 of 2012 instituted under Sections 406 and 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

According to the prosecution case, the land belonged to the petitioner. He had entered into an agreement to sell with coaccused Manish Kumar Kushwaha and others. Under such representation, the informant is said to have paid on different dates either in cash or through cheque a sum of Rs. 49 lakhs for purchase of land of the petitioner. The payment through cheque in the sum of Rs. 15 lakhs was credited in the account of the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45782 of 2014 (4) dt.19-05-2015 2/3 petitioner. When the informant insisted the broker Manish Kumar Kushwaha as well as the petitioner, they refused to execute the sale deed. On these allegations, it has been alleged that the informant was cheated and the petitioner misappropriated the amount.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the agreement to sell was between the petitioner and co-accused Manish Kumar Kushwaha. If no sale deed has been executed then the informant should prosecute Manish Kumar Kushwaha and not the petitioner. According to the informant himself, the amount was received by Manish Kumar Kushwaha and not the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, deserves to be released on anticipatory bail. Counsel for the informant, on the other hand, referring to Annexure-A to the rejoinder submitted that atleast a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs was paid by the informant through cheque drawn in the name of the petitioner which was cleared and credited in the account of the petitioner. The petitioner having received the amount is bound to execute the sale deed but he did not do so. The sale deeds which the petitioner is said to have executed on receiving the amount through Manish Kushwaha (copies whereof have been enclosed as annexures) would show that the sale deeds in respect of the land valued at nearly 11 lakhs

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45782 of 2014 (4) dt.19-05-2015 3/3 were only sold.

On consideration of submissions made by the parties, in my view, this is not a case where the privilege of anticipatory bail should be extended to the petitioner. Prayer is rejected. Let the petitioner surrender and seek regular bail.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Pankaj/- U