Madan Tiwari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76524 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-668 Year-2023 Thana- BHABHU(KAIMUR) COMPLAIN C District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== Madan Tiwari S/O Ramji Tiwari R/O Village- Bandipur ,P.S- Ramgarh, District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Kamlesh Singh S/o Damodar Singh Village- Bandipur PO- Ramgarh PSRamgarh District- Kaimur Bhabua ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajesh Kumar Pathak, Adv.

For the State :

Mr.Shahabuddin Azeem @ S. Azeem, Adv.

For the O.P. No. 2 :

Mr. Kumar Sunil, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 17-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 668 of 2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The complainant (Opposite Party no. 2) purchased three plots from the petitioner through sale deed dated 19.12.2019 (Annexure-R/1), (i) Khata no. 2, Plot No. 16, Area 14 decimals, (ii) Khata no. 43, Plot No. 31, Area 21 decimals and (iii) Khata no. 43, Plot No. 17, Area 39 decimals. According to allegation, the petitioner had already sold Khata no. 43, Plot No. 31, Area 21 decimals and Khata no. 43, Plot No. 17, Area 39 decimals in the year 2012 in favour of some other persons and by concealing this fact, he cheated

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76524 of 2024(8) dt.17-09-2025 2/2 the complainant by executing a subsequent sale deed, in favour of the informant.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was a mistake due to updated entries in the revenue records. The petitioner, in anticipation that he still owned some land, executed those sale deeds as per Annexure-3, i.e., Jamabandi.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the sale deeds annexed to his counter affidavit shows that the petitioner has already transferred land, mentioned above at serial no. 2 and 3 to someone else, which shows the mala fide intention of the petitioner. The petitioner has criminal antecedent also.

6. In my view, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail, which is hereby rejected.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/- U T