Sujit Kumar Singh @ Sujit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80879 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-91 Year-2021 Thana- SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Samastipur ====================================================== Sujit Kumar Singh @ Sujit Kumar Son of Vijendra Prasad Singh Resident of Village- Siropatti, PS- Khanpur, District- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Sanjit Kumar Singh Son of vijendra Prasad Singh Resident of VillageSiropatti, P.S.- Khanpur, Distt.- Samastipur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner :
Mr. Raja Ram Mishra, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Gauri Shankar Gupta, APP For Opposite Party No.2 :
Mr. Dilip Kumar Roy, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 23-01-2025 Heard learned counsels for the parties.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a complaint case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 467, 471, 323, 342, 379 and 504 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that this petitioner, who is own brother of the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2, fraudulently executed a sale deed of land of the complainant in favour of one Manoj Kumar Singh.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. As a matter of fact, petitioner is full
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80879 of 2024(3) dt.23-01-2025 2/3 brother of the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 and has sold the land of his own share. Moreover, the dispute is of civil nature, with regard to sale and purchase of land for which the complainant has got alternative remedy before Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Rest of the allegations are ornamental. It is further submitted that the complainant has lodged the instant complaint case after lapse of two years of execution of the alleged sale deed and there is no plausible explanation for the same. Petitioner claims clean antecedents.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant /Opposite Party No. 2 have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, nature of dispute and clean antecedents of the petitioner, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is allowed.
7. Accordingly, in the event of arrest/surrender within a period of eight weeks from today, let the above named petitioner 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 learned J.M. Ist Class, Samastipur, in connection with Complaint Case No. 91 of 2021, subject to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80879 of 2024(3) dt.23-01-2025 3/3 condition as laid down under Section 482 of the B.N.S.S.. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) shashank/- U T