Ram Pravesh Kewat v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.51154 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -913 Year- 2014 Thana -ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== Ram Pravesh Kewat, son of Late Balrup Kewat, resident of villageBaradhipul Musai Tola, P.S. Akorhigola, District-Rohtas. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Rajdeo Ram, son of Late Ram Kishun Ram, resident of village-Baradhi, P.S. Akorhigola, District-Rohtas.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER ---------- 01-11-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.913 of 2014 registered under Sections 406, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

The accusation is that the complainant/opposite party no.2, who is the employee of the Real Welfare Building Estate Private Company, negotiated with the petitioner to purchase the land and the petitioner showed two plots belonging to Brijvilas Lal and his wife Shyam Sundar Devi to the complainant/opposite party no.2. Thereafter, this petitioner inducing a person in the name of Sunil Kumar alias Sushil Kumar Srivastava, the son of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51154 of 2017 (2) dt.01-11-2017 2/3 Brijvilas Lal and Shyam Sundar Devi, who used to reside at Sherghati, fixed consideration amount Rs.12,43,000/- of the land and the complainant/opposite party no.2 became ready to purchase the same and paid Rs.12,43,000/- to the petitioner and paper regarding the same was prepared but neither the sale deed in respect of the land was executed nor the money was returned to the complainant/opposite party no.2 by the petitioner in spite of making request several times by the complainant/opposite party no.2 to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, the complainant/opposite party no.2 had taken Rs.40,000/- from the petitioner but he did not return the same to him regarding which the petitioner filed Complaint Case No.885 of 2014 against the complainant/opposite party no.2 and others in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram, due to that reason, the complainant/opposite party no.2 has lodged the present case only to put undue pressure upon the petitioner. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

Having considered the facts and the circumstances of the case, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender by him within six weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand)

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51154 of 2017 (2) dt.01-11-2017 3/3 with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram (Rohtas), in connection with Complaint Case No.913 of 2014, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) P.S./- U T