Babita Sinha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84314 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9674 Year-2022 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna ====================================================== Babita Sinha Wife Of Late Amar Kumar Sinha R/O Chiraiyatar, Postal Park, Nala Road, P.S.- Kankarbagh, Dist.- Patna. At Present Resident Of Budh Nagar Road No. 3, Near Achar Factory, P.S.- Kankarbagh, Dist.- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Sanjay Kumar Son Of Late Rudal Sah R/O Mohalla- Arti Kunj (NEAR Jagat Printing Press), Posal Park, Nala Road, P.S.- Kankarbagh, Dist.- Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, APP For the Informant : Mr. Surendra Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 18-01-2024 Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Surendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant as well as Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 9674(C) of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 323, 342, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. According to prosecution case, the petitioner has taken the consideration money from the complainant but did not execute the sale deed in his favour.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84314 of 2023(2) dt.18-01-2024 2/2 petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the petitioner is not ready to return the amount in question to the complainant and as per agreement the complainant is required to pay the remaining amount for execution of the sale deed but he has not submitted the same. He further submits that although she has received Rs. 7 lakh but out of Rs. 7 lakh she has returned only Rs. 1.5 lakh to the complainant.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor have vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that even the petitioner has not annexed the copy of the agreement for sale.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitoner, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No. 9674(C) of 2022 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna, Sadar.

7. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U T