Anjani Kumar @ Pappu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.53569 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-87 Year-2017 Thana- CHARIABARIYARPUR DistrictBegusarai ====================================================== Anjani Kumar @ Pappu, son of late Saligram Singh, resident of villagePawara, P.S. Cheria Bariarpur, District- Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Akhileshwar Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Surendra Pd. Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Vinay Mistry, Advocate Mr. Sauref, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 09-11-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State as well as the informant. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection with Cheria Bariarpur P.S. Case No. 87 of 2017 for offences under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 471/34 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioner, as per the first information report, is that the petitioner has manufactured a forged Will in his favour purportedly executed by the mother-inlaw of the informant, who happens to be the mother of this petitioner.

Mr. Akhileshwar Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that there is absolutely no

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.53569 of 2017(2) dt.09-11-2017 2/3 dispute that the petitioner is the son of the executant of the Will. He submits that in Probate case No. 40/2015 every family members have been heard before passing the order in the probate case and after the order was passed in the probate case, the present case has been filed as a pressure tactics. He submits that the order passed in the probate case is appealable but instead of taking legal recourse as would be permissible under the Indian Succession Act, the informant has filed the present case which is patently designed to harass the petitioner. The case on the face of it is false and designed to pressurize the petitioner, who is the beneficiary of the Will and in whose favour the probate was granted.

Counsel for the informant says that the petitioner has practiced fraud in procuring the order of the probate Court. However, he admits that he has not challenged the order of the probate court in accordance with provisions of the Indian Succession Act.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Court is of the view that the petitioner deserves anticipatory bail and accordingly, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender within four weeks from today, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.53569 of 2017(2) dt.09-11-2017 3/3 two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manzhaul, Begusarai, in connection with Cheria Bariarpur P. S. Case No. 87 of 2017, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr. P. C.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) spandey/- U T