Arun Kumar Singh @ Arun Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-920 Year-2023 Thana- SONEPUR District- Saran ====================================================== Arun Kumar Singh @ Arun Kumar S/O Nand Kumar Singh Director A-G, Homes Developers Pvt. Ltd., Resident of House no. 516, J.P Colony, Kharanja Road, besides Mahindra Show Room, New Mainpura (Saguna More), P.O- Danapur Cantt., P.S- Danapur, District- Patna- 801503. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Vijay KUMAR SINGH S/O-Sreebal Narayan Singh @ Sreebal Singh ,R/OVill-Mirzapur Gangajal Bharpura , P.S- Sonepur, Dist-Saran at Chhapra ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Jeetendra Narayan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 19-04-2025 Heard Mr. Jeetendra Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Informant and Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sonepur P.S. Case No. 920 of 2023, F.I.R. dated 29.09.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the First Information Report, the informant alleged that his land was allegedly sold by the petitioner to the other persons.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

2/4 petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. As per allegation in the FIR, the petitioner has sold the land of the informant to Sanjiv Kumar and Sanjit Kumar and when the informant came to know about the same, he contacted Sanjiv Kumar and Sanjit Kumar and they told that they had paid Rs. 25,00,000/- as consideration amount of the land in question and after paying the aforesaid amount, the land in question has been registered in favour of Sanjiv Kumar and Sanjit Kumar. He further submits that the petitioner has no role at all in the alleged occurrence and co-accused persons namely Santosh Singh and Mukesh Kumar vide order dated 16.04.2024 in Cr. Misc. No.16616 of 2024 have been granted privilege of anticipatory bail by this Court and apart from that informant has already filed a Title Suit No. 266 of 2023 for cancellation of the aforesaid sale deed which is pending before the Court of SubJudge-Sonepur, Saran.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the Informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the Informant submits that the petitioner is the main culprit of the present FIR. He further submits that the petitioner has one criminal antecedent but fairly submits on the basis of paragraph-

3/4 3 of the bail petition that the petitioner is on bail in the pending matter.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the informant has already filed Title Suit No. 266 of 2023 which is subject matter of the present FIR and similarly situated coaccused persons have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chapra in connection with Sonepur P.S. Case No.

920 of 2023, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:- i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii.

4/4 witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bond in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

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