Haidar Ali @ Md. Haidar Ali v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58683 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-163 Year-2019 Thana- MOTIHARI TOWN District- East Champaran ====================================================== HAIDAR ALI @ MD. HAIDAR ALI, Son of Samim Akhtar Resident of Village- Bara Bariyarpur, P.S- Chhatauni, District- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Umesh Chandra Verma, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP Mr. Dilip Kumar Tandon, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 17-09-2019 The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Motihari Town P. S. Case No. 163 of 2019 registered under Sections 420, 467,468,471 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegation against the petitioner is that petitioner signed as a witness in a sale deed executed in favour of co-accused Manohar Kumar Singh by the vendor Smt. Amrita Singh appertaining to Khata No. 65, Khesra No. 643, Rakba 1 Katha 10 Dhur situated at Mauza- Bankat, P.S.- Motihari, Muffasil, District - East Champaran inasmuch as the allegation is that the vendee i.e., Manohar Kumar Singh by impersonating other person in the name of Amrita Singh and by preparing false PAN Card, has got the sale deed executed in his favour for the aforesaid land on 12.12.2018. Mr. Abhishek Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that insofar as petitioner is concerned, he has merely signed on the sale deed as a witness, which was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58683 of 2019(2) dt.17-09-2019 2/2 executed in favour of co-accused Manohar Kumar Singh and petitioner is not the beneficiary of the same. Mr. Dilip Kumar Tandon, learned counsel for the informant, vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that petitioner is also one of the accomplice in the fake transaction regarding the sale of the land of the informant by producing a fake person.

Having regard to the submissions made by the parties and taking into consideration the fact that petitioner is merely a witness in the sale deed and is not the beneficiary of the transaction, accordingly, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Let the petitioner, above-named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, be released on bail upon furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, East Champaran at Motihari in connection with Motihari Town P.S.Case No. 163 of 2019; subject to condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) sujit/- U T