The High Court at Patna rejected an application for bail filed by Niranjan Kumar in a criminal case involving charges of cheating and forgery related to a land sale. The Court declined bail and directed the trial to conclude within six months.
Petitioner's bail application dismissed; trial directed to conclude within six months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.11424 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -233 Year- 2013 Thana -BEUR District- PATNA
====================================================== Niranjan Kumar @ Niraj Kumar, Son of Late Sudarshan Singh, resident of Village- Masadpur, P.S.- Parasi, District- Arwal .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For the Informant: Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr.Advocate & Mrs. Meena Singh, Advocate. For the State: Mrs. Pushpa Sinha No. 2, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER 8 21-07-2014 Heard Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel, Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the informant assisted by Mrs. Meena Singh, Advocate and Mrs. Pushpa Sinha No. 2, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. The petitioner seeks bail in Beur P.S. Case No. 233 of 2013 dated 26.09.2013 instituted under Sections 365 / 368 / 506 / 467 / 468 / 469 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the allegation is that the petitioner abducted the informant and made her to forcibly execute the deed with regard to her land at Arwal, but the same is false and concocted for the simple reason
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11424 of 2014 (8) dt.21-07-2014
2/3
that when she appeared before the Registrar, she raised no objection. It is further submitted that on the deed itself, it has been mentioned that she has received the entire consideration amount. In the supplementary affidavit filed, learned counsel has brought on record certain undated cheques signed by the petitioner for various amounts and it has been submitted that had the intention been mala fide, then those cheques would have been presented before the Bank and had the same not been encashed, he could have also lodged criminal proceeding. It is further submitted that the cheques were produced by the petitioner before the police though there is no mentioning of the same in the F.I.R. Learned counsel has also submitted that for cancellation of the sale deed, the petitioner has a civil remedy. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 06.01.2014.
Learned A.P.P., upon going through the case diary, as well as the learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the informant also filed a counter affidavit in which it is stated that the fact that the petitioner had forcibly got the cheques signed by her has been stated by the informant during investigation and that, if the contention of the petitioner is accepted, then when she had received the entire consideration amount and executed the sale deed, the signed
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11424 of 2014 (8) dt.21-07-2014
3/3
undated cheques ought to have been returned to her, but on the date of registration the same having not been done and admittedly the original still being in the possession of the petitioner, he cannot plead innocence. It is further submitted that the petitioner going alone for such registration also appears to be unnatural since her brother-in-law was available and further that her husband was out of station and, thus, she would, in normal circumstances, have waited for him to return. It is further submitted that a day prior to registration of the deed, her son’s leg was fractured in an accident for which she was going to bring medicine when she was forcibly taken for execution of the sale deed. Learned counsel submits that not even a single transaction has been made through the Bank or money deposited in the Bank during the period which could indicate that she had received any consideration amount for the transfer of her land.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
However, the court below shall expedite the trial and conclude the same within six months.
Dilip. U T
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be granted bail in case involving alleged cheating and forgery.
Whether the evidence of undated cheques and lack of bank transactions establishes innocence.
Whether the trial court should expedite the trial within six months.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Niranjan Kumar
The State of Bihar
Ahsanuddin Amanullah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
