Patna High CourtCR. MISC./73286/2024dismissed

Subodh Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2025-07-23Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73286 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1859 Year-2023 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna ====================================================== Subodh Kumar Singh S/O Late Brijnandnan Singh R/O House No- CC 81, P. C. Colony, Kankarbagh, P.O- Lohia Nagar P.S- Kankarbagh, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar 2.

Safdar Jamil S/o Late Jamil Ahmad R/o Mohalla - Belwarganj, P.S. - Alamganj, Distt. - Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arvind Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Uday Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 23-07-2025 Heard Mr.Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Uday Pratap Singh, learned APP for the State.

2. The present application has been filed for cancellation of bail of opposite party No.2 which was granted vide order dated 10.07.2024 passed in A.B.P.No. 1722 of 2024 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-XXIII, Patna in connection with Complaint Case No.1859(C) of 2024.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned court below while granting bail to opposite party No.2 wrongly observing transaction as of civil nature despite the fact that materials on record further supported by enquiry witnesses and cognizance u/s 406/ 420/467/471 IPC clearly establishes

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73286 of 2024(2) dt.23-07-2025 2/2 fraud and forgery on the part of opposite party No.2 and the transaction not being of civil nature as no dispute with regard to give and take rather the opposite party No.2 with malafide intention to swallow up money of Rs. 35 lakhs (Thirty Five Lacs) in the name of false and fabricated agreement paper between opposite party No.2 (broker) and Sesnath Singh and Usha devi (land owners) whereas learned court below completely ignoring cognizance order and fradulence and forgery and criminal ingredient in this case have granted bail to opposite party No.2 causing irreparable damage to the petitioner.

4. From a bare perusal of the pleadings in the present Cr. Miscellaneous application which suggests that the petitioner has also initiated a Money Suit bearing No.219 of 2023 against the opposite party No.2 for the same set of relief as Complaint Case No.1859(C)of 2023.

5. In view of the aforesaid, no case is made out for interference for cancellation of bail of opposite party No.2.

6. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Nitesh/- U T