Md. Mansoor Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69866 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-124 Year-2022 Thana- GAYA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictGaya ====================================================== MD. MANSOOR ANSARI Son of Late Md. Usman Ansari R/o Mohalla - Gewal Bigha, Munni Masjid, P.S.- Rampur, District - Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Shafi Ahmad Son of Shami Ahmad R/o Mohalla - Aliganj, Road No.- 12/C, P.S.- Chandauti, District - Gaya 823001.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sunil Kumar Yadav For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Madhura Nand Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 17-04-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per prosecution case, the petitioner's wife was serious and he was in need of money. So, he wants to sell his land. Complainant came in contact with the petitioner and rate was fixed. The complainant transferred Rs. 5,00,000/- in advance in the account of petitioner, an agreement was prepared in which accused person put his signature and the date of execution of sale deed was fixed within two months from the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69866 of 2022(6) dt.17-04-2023 2/3 date of agreement after that the petitioner agreed to execute deed of sale in favour of complainant, which became failed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in this case. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He stated in the bail application that amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- has been returned to the said Afreen Bano. He submits that there is civil/money dispute between the parties. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

Learned APP for the State opposes prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that process of 82 and 83 has been issued against the petitioner, therefore, anticipatory bail application is not maintainable.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of records it is clear that process of 82 is not validly served upon the petitioner and on the same day process of 83 has been issued, it is clear from the Annexure A3 of the counter affidavit filed by opposite party no.2, let the above named petitioner, be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69866 of 2022(6) dt.17-04-2023 3/3 six weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending/successor Court in connection with Complaint Case No. 124 of 2022, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) anand/- U T