Paras Roy @ Paras Kumar Roy v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.26299 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -485 Year- 2017 Thana -FORBESGANJ District- ARRARIA ====================================================== Paras Roy @ Paras Kumar Roy, son of Sri Ramanand Roy, resident of village- Goryara Chowk, P.S. Forbesganj, District- Araria. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Smt. Rita Verma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 07-05-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Forbesganj P.S. Case No.485 of 2017 registered under Sections 417, 420, 467, 468, 406, 120-B and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the first information report, the husband of the complainant paid rupees five lacs twenty five thousand to the petitioner for purchase of a piece of plot. The said amount was deposited in the bank account of the petitioner in three installments. Thereafter, co-accused Mahindra Mandal and Shyam Sunder Mandal executed sale deed in favour of the informant. Subsequently, when the informant was erecting boundary wall, some persons raised objection. They stated that the ancestors of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26299 of 2018 (2) dt.07-05-2018 2/2 Mahindra Sah and Shyam Sunder Sah had already sold the said plot in their favour. It was the petitioner who had induced the informant's husband for purchase of said piece of plot and had received the amount on behalf of Mahindra Sah and Shyam Sunder Sah. It has also been alleged that the accused persons conspired together and in furtherance of their common object they cheated the informant's husband.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and being a broker dealing in land, he was not aware about the fact that ancestors of co-accused Mahindra Mandal and Shyam Sunder Mandal had already sold the said plot in favour of someone else.

Considering the manner in which the petitioner induced the victim to purchase land and the consideration amount was also received by him whereafter the accused persons cheated the victim, I am not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. The application for grant of pre-arrest bail is rejected. (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) Md.S./- U T