Raju Kumar @ Tinku v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66101 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-282 Year-2019 Thana- RAJGIR District- Nalanda ====================================================== 1.

Raju Kumar @ Tinku, Son of Ram Naresh Prasad, Resident of VillageNahub, P.S.-Rajgir, District-Nalanda. 2.

Vivek Kumar @ Karu, Son of Umesh Prasad, Resident of Village-Nahub, P.S.-Rajgir, District-Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate Ms. Babita Kumari, Advocate Mr. Nitesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ramchandra Singh, APP For the Informant :

Dr. Ajeet Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 22-10-2019 This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Rajgir P. S. Case No. 282 of 2019, disclosing offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

As per F.I.R. there are allegations that informant has purchased a piece of land from the accused persons and later on, he was informed that they are fake persons and not the real owner and so far petitioners are concerned, it is alleged that the money has been paid in front of them. It has further been alleged that petitioners are accused in other case also. At this point of juncture, informant has submitted that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66101 of 2019(2) dt.22-10-2019 2/3 petitioner no.2 is accused in other cases also, but same has not been disclosed by the petitioner in this petition. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that so far petitioners are concerned, they are neither executor nor they have taken money and they have falsely been implicated in this case saying that in front of them, the payment has been made.

Heard learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel for the informant, who has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. Having heard both sides, considering the above submissions, so far as, petitioner no.1 is concerned, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within six weeks, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif in connection with Rajgir P. S. Case No. 282 of 2019, subject to the condition laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. So far as, petitioner no.2 is concerned, considering the facts, as stated above, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to him. However, he may surrender and pray for regular bail, the same shall be considered on its own merit.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66101 of 2019(2) dt.22-10-2019 3/3 With the aforesaid, this application is disposed of. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) Sunil Shukla/- U T