Patna High Court - OrdersSubhash Yadav & Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 20 April, 2018Author:Vinod Kumar SinhaBench:Vinod Kumar SinhaIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                  Criminal Miscellaneous No.17953 of 2018
                     Arising Out of PS.Case No. -715 Year- 2017 Thana -FORBESGANJ District- ARRARIA
                 ======================================================
                 1. Subhash Yadav, S/o Late Bhuwneshwari Yadav,
                 2. Manju Devi @ Anju Devi W/o Subhash Yadav, null
                 3. Ram Pravesh Yadav S/o Kailu Yadav, All above are R/o Village- Khaira
                 Koshakpur, P.S.- Narpatganj, District- Araria.
                 4. Mithilesh Yadav S/o Jamuna Pd. Yadav, R/o Village- Barahara, P.S.-
                 Narpatganj, District- Araria.
                 5. Taimur Ali S/o Late Subhan Ali, R/o Village- Matiyari, P.S.- Forbesganj,
                 District- Araria.

                                                                               .... ....   Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 1. The State of Bihar

                                                                  .... .... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     : Mr. Anil Prasad Singh
                 For the Opposite Party/s   : Mr. Sri Arun Kumar Pandey
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA
                 ORAL ORDER

3   20-04-2018The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in

                 connection with Forbesganj P.S. Case No. 715 of 2017, registered

                 for offences punishable underSections 420,467,468,471,120(B)/34of the Indian Penal Code.Allegation against the petitioner no. 1 that he in

                 connivance with other petitioners got the sale deed of the land of

                 the informant executed in his favour.It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that

                 petitioner nos. 3 and 4 are attesting witness and petitioner no. 5 is

                 deed writer, whereas, petitioner no. 2 is the wife of the petitioner

                 no. 1, who is alleged to have appeared in place of mother in law ofPatna High Court Cr.M isc. No.17953 of 2018 (3) dt.20-04-20182/3the informant while execution of sale deed and only false and

             concocted allegations have been leveled. Further submission is

             that dispute is purely of a civil nature and if the informant is

             aggrieved, he should have filed for cancellation of the sale deed.Heard learned A.P.P. also.Having heard both sides, so far petitioner no. 1 is

             concerned, considering the allegation I am not inclined to grant the

             privilege of anticipatory bail to him rather he should surrender and

             make prayer for regular bail, which will be considered by the court

             below on the merit of the case.So far other petitioners are concern, petitioner no. 2 is

             lady, petitioner nos. 3 and 4 are witnesses and petitioner no. 5 is

             the deed writer, as such, let these petitioners in the event of their

             arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of six

             weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order,

             be enlarged on bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 25,000 (Rs. Twenty

             Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to

             the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria, in

             connection with Forbesganj P.S. Case No. 715 of 2017, subject to

             the conditions as laid down underSection 438(2)of the Cr.P.C, as

             well as subject to the following conditions, it is further subject to

             the condition that:-Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.17953 of 2018 (3) dt.20-04-20183/3(i)             One of the bailors of the petitioners shall be

                                                    a local person having sufficient immovable

                                                    property within the jurisdiction of the

                                                    concerned Court.(ii)            The petitioners shall cooperate in the

                                                    investigation and make themselves available

                                                    as and when required by the police and on

                                                    the event of failure on their part to appear

                                                    before the police on two consecutive dates

                                                    without showing any genuine reasons, the

                                                    prosecution is free to move for cancellation

                                                    of their bail bonds.With the above observation, this application is

                       disposed of.(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J)
sunil/-U          T