Bhartendu Prasad Singh @ Jhulan Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70583 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-287 Year-2022 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna ====================================================== 1.

BHARTENDU PRASAD SINGH @ JHULAN SINGH S/O DURGA SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- RAMPUR SHERPUR, P.S.- MANER, DISTRICT- PATNA.

2.

PRAVEEN KUMAR SHARMA S/O BHARTENDU PRASAD SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- RAMPUR SHERPUR, P.S.- MANER, DISTRICT- PATNA.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

None For the State :

Mr.Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 03-12-2025 Heard the learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 287(c) of 2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. None appeared on behalf of the petitioners whereas the learned counsel for the informant/husband of the informant is in appearance.

4. Brief facts of the case is that Shruti Kumari lodged an FIR stating therein that her father was posted in Jammu &

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70583 of 2023(3) dt.03-12-2025 2/2 Kashmir as Head Constable in CRPF. Her father died during his duty. Later on, her mother also died. Since the informant (victim) was minor at that time, her uncle Bhartendu Prasad Singh @ Jhulan Singh (petitioner no. 1) obtained a guardianship certificate from the court and fraudulently transferred her land in favour of Praveen Kumar Sharma (petitioner no. 2). The petitioner concealed the fact that his brother had already died. When the informant opposed, he threatened her and her husband to kill.

6. The learned counsel fo the informant has submitted further that after lodging of the present case, the informant has died and her husband has been impleaded in her place. His further submission is that the petitioner, being uncle of a minor orphan girl, transferred her property fraudulently and cheated her.

7. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, in my view, the petitioners don't deserve the privileges for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) kundan/- U T