Arvind Dubey v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86293 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-908 Year-2024 Thana- EAST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.
Arvind Dubey S/o Late Dayal Dubey Resident of village- Laxmipur tola Balganga, P.S- Turkauliya, District- East Champaran 2.
Arvind Pandey S/o Yogendra Pandey R/o vill - Laxmipur Vrita, P.S. - Raghunathpur, Distt.- East Champaran. At present Address R/o vill - Ghosiyar, P.s. - Sangrampur, distt.- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Ashish Ranjan Singh S/o Late Narendra Prasad Singh R/o vill - Raja Bazar Purvi Gopalpur, P.S. - Nagar Motihari, Distt.- East Champaran ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Adv.
For the State :
Mr. Md. Aslam Ansari, APP For the Complainant :
Mr. Karandeep Kumar, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 04-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned APP for the State and learned counsel appearing for the complainant.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, these petitioners, after taking an amount of Rs. 13,05,000/- from the complainant, executed the sale deed, but the complainant had a grievance that he was cheated by the petitioners and a different land has been executed owing to which the mutation application of the complainant got rejected.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86293 of 2024(4) dt.04-08-2025 2/2
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners did not commit any offence of cheating rather the land was not to the liking of the complainant and since the present case is essentially of civil nature, other alternative remedies are also available to the complainant.
5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel appearing for the complainant, however, strongly oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners who have no criminal antecedent. Let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the Court below within four weeks, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned lower Court where the case is pending/successor Court in connection with Complaint Case No. 908 of 2024, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C/ 482 (2) of the BNSS, 2023.
(Soni Shrivastava, J) divyanshi/- U T