Arun Oraon And ANR v. State Of Bihar And ANR

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8035 of 2017 (2) dt.23-02-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.8035 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -74 Year- 2013 Thana -PURNIA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPURNIA ======================================================

1. Arun Oraon S/o Kare Oraon, Resident of Baghmara, Jhiltola, P.S.- K. Nagar, District- Purnea.

2. Mithilesh Singh Son of Late Janardan Prasad Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Janata Chowk, P.S.- K. Hat, District- Purnea. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. State of Bihar

2. Santosh Kumar, S/o Late Premchand Singh, R/o Mohalla- Sheopuri, P.S.- K.Hat, District- Purnea.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ram Anurag Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 23-02-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Complaint Case Police Station Case No. 74 of 2013, disclosing offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

According to the prosecution, complainant purchased a piece of land of Khat No. 299, Khesra No. 1198, Area 29 decimals but Jagdish Prasad Poddar got a deed of power of attorney executed from Arun Oraon with regard to the entire lands including the land of the complainant. Arun Oraon sold a

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8035 of 2017 (2) dt.23-02-2017 piece of land in favor of Ram Pukar Rai and thereafter accused Ram Pukar Rai sold a piece of land in favour of Raj Kumar Chaudhary.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the entire prosecution relates to a civil land dispute. These petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Moreover, the co-accused, Raj Kumar Choudhary @ Raj Kumar, has already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No.36798 of 2016. Hence, the petitioners also deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea, in connection with Complaint Case No. 74 of 2013, subject to the condition laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Arvind Srivastava, J) brajesh/- U T