Kumar Vibhav @ Mannu v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86059 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-514 Year-2019 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Supaul ====================================================== KUMAR VIBHAV @ MANNU S/O RAMNARESH PANDEY RESIDENT OF FLAT NO 201A JEET ENCLAV, SHIV PURI, PS- RAJVANSHI NAGAR, DISTRICT- PATNA ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1 .
The State of Bihar 2.
Smt. Amita Kumari W/o Sri Ramod Narayan Jha R/o vill - Vina Bavangama, P.S. - Supaul, Distt.- Supaul, at presently R/o 424/B, Road no. 6, Ashok Nagar, P.S. - Ashok Nagar, Ranchi ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Dr.Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam , APP For Complainant :
Mr. Kr.Gautam , Advocate Mr. Arun Kumar Jha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 28-02-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code .
3. As per prosecution case , an agreement was made between the parties for sale of land. Pursuant to the agreement 23 lakh 10 thousand was paid to the accused persons but after receiving consideration money they refused to execute sale deed in favour of complainant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86059 of 2024(3) dt.28-02-2025 2/3 petitioner is neither seller nor purchaser of the land in question and sale deed was executed by one Priti Thakur W/oRamnaresh Thakur, and the name of this petitioner transpired in this case merely because petitioner is son of Priti Thakur and except there is no other material on record. It is further submitted that total 18 lakh rupees was transferred in the account of the petitioner which was handed over to Priti Thakur and after that petitioner has no concern about the aforesaid amount. However, he admits that Rs. 18,00,000/- (Eighteen lakh) is the due amount that is to be given to the complainant by the petitioner and accordingly, and he is ready to pay the same in installments.
5. Considering the aforesaid contention made on behalf of the petitioner, this anticipatory bail is allowed and it is ordered that let the above named petitioner in the event of his arrest/surrender before the court below within a period of six weeks from today, 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate Supaul District Supaul in connection with Complaint Case No. 514 of 2019 , subject to condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with direction to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86059 of 2024(3) dt.28-02-2025 3/3 petitioner that :- (i) Petitioner shall refund Rs. 4,00,000/- (four lakh) through Bank Draft to the informant at the time of furnishing bail-bond and thereafter, rest amount i.e., 14,00,000/- (fourteen lakh) shall be deposited in six installments within one year through Bank Draft to the Complainant namely Amita Kumari failing which, the learned court below would be at liberty to cancel the bail-bond.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Koushik/- U T