This order rejects the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail. The Court held that the petitioner's act of selling the same property to the complainant and subsequently to others indicates intention to defraud, disentitling him to bail.
Prayer for anticipatory bail rejected.
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.19762 of 2020
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-164 Year-2017 Thana- DARBHANGA COMPLAINT CASE District- Darbhanga
======================================================
SHYAMANAND THAKUR S/o Late Chandrabali Thakur R/o village- Parari, P.S.- Biraul, District- Darbhanga
... ... Petitioner
Versus
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dhirendra Nath Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 07-12-2021
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 164 of 2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120(B), 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
As per allegation, the petitioner disposed of his landed property in favour of the complainant and subsequently he transferred the same property to other persons.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has disposed of his property by three sale deeds of different khata no. and plot no. The first sale deed in favour of complainant, on 21.2.2009 and the second sale deed in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19762 of 2020(4) dt.07-12-2021 2/2
favour of Ganga Sada, on 6.7.2013 and the third sale deed in favour of Ram Bahadur Manjhi on 6.7.2013. He has further submitted that the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint petition and being aggrieved by that order the complainant preferred revision and as per order of the revisional court the direction was given only to proceed against the petitioner and other co-accused persons were exonerated.
Xerox copy of three sale deeds has been annexed with the record. The first sale deed dated 21.2.2009 shows that petitioner executed sale deed in favour of the complainant in respect of khata No. 39 plot No. 2306 and 2307 and khata No. 667 plot No. 2373 and 4389 and the said khata No. 667 plot No. 2373 is also found in the sale deed dated 6.7.2013 in favour of Ganga Sada executed by the petitioner.
This fact shows that the petitioner sold the same property firstly in favour of the complainant and subsequently in favour of other persons which shows his intention to defraud the complainant. As such, the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail.
The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey , J)
SONALI/- U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail being suspect of fraudulent disposal of property.
Whether the grant of anticipatory bail can be denied on the ground of intention to defraud.
Shyam Anand Thakur
The State of Bihar
Ram Sevak Manjhi
Nawneet Kumar Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
