Allowed

Munna Yadav v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC1 Aug 2022CR. MISC./47911/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This anticipatory bail petition was allowed. The High Court directed the petitioners to remove stamp paper defects within one month and granted bail upon arrest or surrender. They must furnish a bail bond with two sureties subject to CrPC Section 438(2) conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with bond of Rs. 10,000 and two sureties; ordered to remove stamp defects within one month.

Munna Yadav Vs the State of Bihar — Anticipatory Bail | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47911 of 2021

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-206 Year-2019 Thana- KATIHAR NAGAR District- Katihar

¶3

======================================================

¶4

MUNNA YADAV S/O BHOLA YADAV R/o Barmasiya, P.S.- Katihar Sahayak, District- Katihar.

¶5

ABHISHEK KUMAR S/O BHOLA YADAV R/o Barmasiya, P.S.- Katihar Sahayak, Distt- Katihar.

¶6

... ... Petitioner/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

THE STATE OF BIHAR

¶9

Sanjeev Kumar Yadav S/o Late Radha Yadav R/o Barmasiya, P.S.- Sahayak, Dist- Katihar.

¶10

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶11

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anita Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY

¶12

ORAL ORDER

¶13

3 01-08-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

¶15

The petitioners apprehend their arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 420, 120(B), 406, 467, 468, 323, 341 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in connection with Katihar Nagar Sahayak P.S.Case No. 206 of 2019.

¶16

As per allegation, the complainant entered into an agreement with co-accused Bhola Yadav and as per the agreement, rest amount was to be paid within a period of 11 months, but co-accused Bhola Yadav did not execute the sale deed despite the fact that the entire money was paid to him.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the agreement to sale was entered into between the complainant and co-accused Bhola Yadav and not with the petitioners. They are merely attesting witnesses of that

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47911 of 2021(3) dt.01-08-2022 2/2

¶19

document. Petitioners are persons of clean antecedent.

¶20

Considering the above facts and circumstances, let the petitioners above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender within four weeks from the date of communication of this order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) each, with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of CJM, Katihar in connection with Katihar Nagar (Sahayak) P.S.Case No. 206 of 2019, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr. P.C.

¶21

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioners within the stipulated time as provided hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

¶22

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)

¶23

HR/-

¶24

U T

Munna Yadav v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munna Yadav v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhushan Rai @ Chandra Bhushan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Ibran Khan Vs The State of Bihar

Musid Sai Vs The State of Bihar

Rajesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Guddu Mishra @ Mayank Mishra @ Mayank Shekhar Mishra Vs the State of Bihar

Satindra Das @ Satendra Das Vs The State of Bihar