Sanjay Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79823 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-807 Year-2021 Thana- GAYA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictGaya ====================================================== 1.
SANJAY SINGH son of Suresh Singh Village- Bhavandi Ps- Amas DistGaya 2.
Binay Prasad son of Ram Awatar Mahto Village- Pindri Karamdih Ps- Amas Dist- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Jitendra Kumar S/o Jagdev Singh R/o vill - Parhariya, P.S. - Prayiya, Distt. - Gaya ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioners :
Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Humayou Ahmad Khan, APP For Opposite Party No.2 :
Mr. Shailesh Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 06-02-2025 Heard learned counsels for the parties.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a complaint case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per complaint case, complainant gave Rs. 10,00,000/- to these petitioners for purchasing 11 acres of land and petitioners had put a signature on stamp paper but thereafter refused to execute the sale deed.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case with ulterior motive. As a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79823 of 2023(8) dt.06-02-2025 2/2 matter of fact, owner of the land in question is one Pramod Kumar Mishra, who gave the power of attorney to sell the land to these petitioners and accordingly, the petitioners entered in the agreement with the complainant. However, the complainant hasn't paid the full consideration money. Petitioners claim clean antecedents.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and submitted that despite taking consideration money from the informant, these petitioners refused to execute the sale deed.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and nature of accusation, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) shashank/- U T