Smt. Manju Devi @ Manju Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64248 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-418 Year-2018 Thana- FATUA District- Patna ====================================================== SMT. MANJU DEVI @ MANJU DEVI Wife of Sri Shailesh Prasad Resident of Mohalla - Maksud Pur, P.S.- Fatuha, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
THE STATE OF BIHAR Bihar 2.
Ranjeet Kumar Son of Bindeshwari Singh Resident of Village - Maksudhpur, P.S.- Fatuha, District- Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ram Krishna Prasad Yadav For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Rajeev Nayan (App 231) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 07-11-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Fatuha P.S. Case No. 418 of 2018 for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is of clean antecedent, is innocent and has not committed any offence. In fact, there is land dispute between the parties and on account of that this petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. The dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. The petitioner is rotting in judicial custody since 10.08.2019.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64248 of 2019(2) dt.07-11-2019 2/2 Learned counsel for A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there was an agreement between the parties with respect to a piece of land and the petitioner with intention of cheating has executed the land to other purchaser even after taking the consideration amount from the informant and she is not ready to refund the consideration amount to the informant. Hence, she does not deserve the bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of this petitioner is rejected.
(Arvind Srivastava, J) Brajesh/- U T