Vinod Kumar @ Binod Kumar Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2117 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-439 Year-2021 Thana- BIKRAMGANJ District- Rohtas ====================================================== 1.

Vinod Kumar @ Binod Kumar Rai S/O Late Bramhadev Rai VillageBhaluahin, Ps. Natwar, Dist. Rohtas. 2.

Manish Kumar S/O Binod Kumar Rai Village- Bhaluahin, Ps. Natwar, Dist. Rohtas.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Dulesher Devi W/o Munni Lal Chaudhary, R/o Bholpura, P.S. Karakata, District - Rohtas Pin 821311.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Abhishek Anand For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Arun Kumar Singh APP Mr. Bijendra Pd. Sinha Mr. Anjani Kumar Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 06-05-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant / opposite party no. 2.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per F.I.R., all the accused persons including these petitioners registered the land of the informant by producing another lady in place of owner of the land. It is further alleged that informant has given total amount of Rs.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2117 of 2024(4) dt.06-05-2024 2/3 29,46,000/- (twenty nine lacs forty six thousand) through cheque/cash to the co-accused Rahul Singh and when the informant went to circle office, she came to know that owner of the land Sangita Singh has filed protest petition on 30.09.2021 stating therein that she has not executed any sale-deed of the land in question and as such, said land may not be mutated.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that from perusal of the F.I.R., it is apparent that aforesaid amount has been given through cheque/cash to co-accused Rahul Singh. Moreover, the land has already been registered in the name of informant and thereafter, mutation has also been done. Petitioner no. 1 is father and petitioner no. 2 is brother of co-accused Rahul Singh. He lastly submits that the dispute is purely of a civil nature. Petitioners claim clean antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 opposed the bail petition.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the above named petitioners, in the event of their arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2117 of 2024(4) dt.06-05-2024 3/3 Bikramganj, District - Rohtas in connection with Bikramganj P.S. Case No. 439 of 2021, subject to condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) anay U T