Most. Jamuti Devi And ORS v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.28751 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -2237 Year- 2017 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPATNA ====================================================== 1.Most. Jamuti Devi wife of Late Yamuna Singh 2.Smt.Ganita Devi wife of Ravi Chandra Kumar 3.Ravi Chandra Kumar son of Brij Nandan Kumar
4. Lalit Prasad son of Ram Chalitra Prasad 5.Mukesh Kumar son of Late Mahendra Singh.
All residents of Nandlal Chhapra, P.S. Ram Krishna Nagar, DistrictPatna. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhubneshwar Prasad For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Chandra Bhushan Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 09-05-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Complaint Case No.2237 (C) of 2017 registered for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 420, 423 and 120(B) of I.P.C. Accusation is that on family partition the complainant came in possession of 4 decimal land of Plot No.26 of Khata No.9 in Mauja Nandlal Chapra, Patna and his name is also mutated and the rent is being paid to the Govt. of Bihar. Petitioner no.1, Smt. Jamuti Devi who is the first wife of the complainant, Yamuna Singh sold one decimal land of Plot No.26 in favour of petitioner
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28751 of 2018 (2) dt.09-05-2018 2/3 no.2, Smt.Ganita Devi, and her husband Ravi Chandra Kumar by committing fraud.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that it would appear from complaint petition that petitioner no.1 Jamuti Devi is the first wife of the complainant, Yamuna Singh and petitioner no.2, Ganita Devi is the daughter-inlaw of the complainant, petitioner no.3, Ravichandra Kumar is the husband of petitioner no.2 and petitioners no.4 and 5 are Lalit Prasad and Mukesh Kumar, respectively who are the co-villagers of the complainant. In fact, the sale deed was executed by petitioner no.1 in favour of petitioners no.2 and 3 but taking undue advantage of old age and disability of the complainant his son took the thumb impression and filed the present complaint case only to harass the petitioners and to create disturbance in possession of the petitioners no.2 and 3. Further submission is that the son of the complainant Yamuna Singh and his son, Prahlad Kumar Singh has filed a Title Suit No.234 of 2017 against petitioners no.1, 2, 3 challenging the sale deed, which is pending in the court of Sub Judge-1st, Patna.
Having considered the facts and the circumstances of the case, let the petitioners above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within six weeks from today, be
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28751 of 2018 (2) dt.09-05-2018 3/3 enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the A.C.J.M., Patna, in connection with Complaint Case No. 2237 (C) of 2017 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) AnilKrSinha/- U