Mahboob Alam And ORS v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.55071 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -24 Year- 2016 Thana -RATANPURA District- SUPAUL ======================================================
1. Mahboob Alam, Son of Late Sauket Ali, resident of Village - Dinbandhi, Police Station - Balua Bazar, District - Supaul.
2. Abdul Kayum @ Kayum Ansari, Son of Late Sauket Ali.
3. Md. Tahir @ Tahir Ansari @ Md. Tahir Hussain Ansari, Son of Late Mobarak Ansari, resident of Village - Sonapur, Police Station - Ratanpura, District - Supaul.
4. Md. rafique @ Md. Rafique Ansari, Son of Late Mobarak Ansari, resident of Village - Gadhdhau, Police Station - Ratanpura, District - Supaul.
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Arun, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 17-11-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.
Petitioners apprehend their arrest in Ratanpura P.S. Case No.24 of 2016 for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 341, 447, 504, 506/34 of the I.P.C.
As per the written report the petitioners conspired together and created a forged sale deed of the disputed land in the year 1988. Further allegation is that in the year 2016 the accused persons filed application for
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.55071 of 2017 (2) dt.17-11-2017 2/3 transfer of name before the Circle Officer Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that they have no criminal antecedent. In the impugned order itself it has been mentioned that T.S. bearing T.S. No.04/17 with respect to the disputed land is going between the parties. It has also been alleged in the written report that the petitioners fraudulently got the sale deed executed in the year 1988 by impersonating the complainant and put forged signature.
Petitioner no.1became identifier over the sale deed and petitioner no.2 and 3 became beneficiaries whereas nothing has been alleged against the petitioner no.4 in the complaint itself. In course of investigation sons of the informant have stated before the police that disputed land in question is registered in the name of their mother but the petitioners were coming in possession over the same since long.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, prayer of the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail is allowed. Let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within six weeks from today, be released on bail on furnishing bail
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.55071 of 2017 (2) dt.17-11-2017 3/3 bonds of Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of S.D.J.M., Birpur (Supaul), in Ratanpura P.S. Case No.24/16 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of Cr.P.C. with further conditions: (1) bailors should be local having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the court concerned, (2) petitioners shall cooperate in the trial and shall be present on each and every date fixed by the court and absence on two consecutive dates without proper and reasonable reason will automatically cancel bail bond of the petitioner and (3) if petitioners tamper with the evidence or the witnesses of the case, in that case, prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioners.
(Sanjay Priya, J) AnilKrSinha/- U T