Mahendra Pandit v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80806 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-967 Year-2023 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE - PATNA CITY District- Patna ====================================================== Mahendra Pandit S/O Late Rambricksh Pandit R/O Village- Nimtal Khushrupur, Ward No. 01, P.S.- Khushrupur, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Soni Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 03-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120(B), 467, 468, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The case of the prosecution based on complaint petition is that the petitioner along with others misrepresented the complainant that Ashish Kumar has purchased the land from one Arvind Kumar and it is free from all encumbrances. After that the complainant was asked to purchase the land. An agreement to sale was executed and in view of the agreement to sale, a sale deed was also executed. It is also alleged that the complainant gave Rupees 17 Lakh 85 Thousand towards consideration. The complainant came to know that the land is disputed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80806 of 2025(2) dt.03-12-2025 2/2 from perusal of the solemn affirmation of the complainant it is clear that the consideration amount was given to Ashish Kumar, Renu Kumari, Pankaj and Ramghari Saw through cheque in their account and the rest amount was given in cash. It has been submitted that the petitioner is only a witness of the sale deed; the petitioner is not the beneficiary. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner is a man of clean antecedent and is in judicial custody since 16.07.2025.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail to the petitioner.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be released on bail in connection with Complaint Case No.967 of 2023 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. 1st Class, Patna City. (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) durgesh/- U T