Chhote Lal @ Chhote Lal Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74263 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1751 Year-2016 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna ====================================================== CHHOTE LAL @ CHHOTE LAL RAI S/o Late Ram Bilash Rai R/o Station Road, Phulwarisharif, P.S.- Phulwarisharif, Distt- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Nagbansh Singh S/o Late Narayan Singh R/o Vill Danwar P.S.- Karakat, Distt- Rohtas at Bhabhua. At present Mohalla- Bank of India Colony, Ram Nagari more in front of Shiv Mandir Quarter no. 164 (A), P.S.- Sashatri Nagar, Distt- Patna.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Nagendra Prasad, APP For the Informant :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 05-05-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 504 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

It is alleged that the wife of the complainant had entered into an agreement with Smt. Geeta Devi for sale of land of two kathas situated in Dhanot, Pargana, Phulwarisharif, Patna. Token money of Rs. 10 lakh was paid by Geeta Devi. After about two months, all the accused expressed their inability to sell the said land and forced her to return the token money of Rs. 10 lakh. The accused persons continued to threaten the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74263 of 2022(2) dt.05-05-2023 2/3 complainant and her wife even after returning the said amount. The accused persons had also assured the complainant that they would give the original agreement papers. But the said original agreement papers have not been returned till date. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case because he is one of the eye-witnesses in Complaint Case No. 155(C) of 2015 filed by co-accused Smt. Geeta Devi against the Opposite party No. 2 and his wife. Petitioner claims clean antecedent. Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail petition of the petitioner.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, in the event of arrest or surrender within six weeks from today, let the petitioner, as named above, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned J.M.- Ist Class , Patna in connection with Complaint Case No. 1751 of 2016 subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Alok Verma/- U T

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74263 of 2022(2) dt.05-05-2023 3/3