Munesar Rajbhar And ORS v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.40192 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-67 Year-2013 Thana- GOPALGANJ COMPLAINT CASE District- Gopalganj ======================================================
1. Munesar Rajbhar, Son of Late Bujhawan Rajbhar,
2. Sadik Ansari, Son of Late Sahdul Ansari,
3. Chotak Gosai, Son of Late Kavleshwar Gosai,
4. Ashma Khatoon, Wife of Maksood Ansari. All are Resident of Village- Sandiha, P.S. Vijaipur, District- Gopalganj.
5. Ram Pravesh Rajbhar, Son of Indrasan Rajbhar, Resident of Village- Luhsi, P.S. Bhorey, District- Gopalganj. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Subhawati Devi, W/o Hardeo Rajbhar, Resident of Village- Sandiha, P.S. Vijaipur, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Dhramveer For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Md. Ashlam Ansari For the Complainant :
Mr. Nagendra Rai ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 26-09-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
Complainant claims to be the daughter of Sri Kishun Bhar. She further claims to be the only issue of Sri Kishun Bhar. The complaint petition would reveal that subsequently Sri Kishun Bhar had renounced the world and became a Saint. Allegation is that Damodar Rajbhar is not son of Sri
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40192 of 2018(3) dt.26-09-2018 2/2 Kishun Bhar but he pretended to be the son of Sri Kishun Bhar and executed sale deed in respect of the land of Sri Kishun Bhar in favour of present petitioner No.1, Munesar Rajbhar and petitioner No.4, Ashma Khatoon. Other petitioners are witnesses on the sale deed.
Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
Considering the nature of allegation against the petitioners, let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned court below where the case is pending in connection with Complaint Case No.67 of 2013, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as condition that the petitioners shall fully co-operate with the investigation/trial of the case, failing which the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioners. (Birendra Kumar, J) abhishek/- U T