Allowed

Rahul Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC5 Dec 2023CR. MISC./39738/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application by a son named in an FIR alleging cheating over a land sale agreement in Bhagalpur. The court noted the co-accused father had already been granted anticipatory bail, heard counsel, and allowed the petition with conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be released on anticipatory bail on bond of Rs. 20,000 with two like sureties, subject to Section 438(2) CrPC conditions.

Rahul Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39738 of 2023

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2022 Thana- INDUSTRIAL District- Bhagalpur

¶3

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

¶4

Rahul Kumar, aged about 29 years (Male), Son of Kamaldev Yadav @ Karu Yadav, Resident of Village- Purani Dyorhi, P.S.- Barari, Distt- Bhagalpur.

¶5

... ... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar.

¶8

Rajesh Thakur @ Rajesh Kumar Thakur, S/O Mohan Thakur, resident of village-Nagarpara, P.S. Bhawanipur (Bihpur), District-Bhagalpur.

¶9

... ... Opposite Parties

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Brij Nandad Prasad, Advocate For the O.P. No. 2 : M/S. Atul Kumar and Narendra Kumar Singh, Advocates For the State : Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH

¶11

ORAL ORDER

¶12

4 05-12-2023

¶13

This matter has been listed under the heading “For Orders (on office notes)”. In the meantime, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has appeared and filed a Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, in course of the day.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of three weeks from today.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶16

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Industrial P.S. Case No. 03 of 2022 dated

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39738 of 2023(4) dt.05-12-2023 2/4

¶18

05.01.2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406/34 of the I.P.C.

¶19

As per the prosecution case, an agreement dated 20.03.2018 was executed amongst the informant and the coaccused Kamaldev Yadav @ Karu Yadav which was bound to execute sale deed in three months after accepting sale consideration for 1440 Sq. fit land out of his total land as detailed in F.I.R. The informant no. 2 Ramesh Kumar also made similar allegation for 720 Sq. fit. On 28.02.2021, the co-accused Kamaldev Yadav @ Karu Yadav and his three sons including the petitioner came on the land and started cleaning. On asking, the co-accused alongwith others entered into heated arguments and, on being quizzed, it came to knowledge that the co-accused Kamaldev Yadav @ Karu Yadav got the said land mutated in his name in October, 2020 itself and later on got the said land mutated in the names of his three sons including the petitioner.. The F.I.R. named persons had dishonesty cheated them by usurping the advance money and then to avoid agreement and got the said land mutated in the name of his three sons including the petitioner causing physical, mental and financial harassment and loss to the informants.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39738 of 2023(4) dt.05-12-2023 3/4

¶22

that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner. The petitioner wanted to sale the land to the informant on consideration amount but the informant paid only Rs. 3,00,000/- lacs through cheque but rest amount could not be paid within the stipulated period. It is further submitted that after expiry period of agreement, the petitioner cancelled the agreements and informed the informants. It is a civil dispute. The co-accused Kamaldev Yadav @ Karu Yadav has already returned Rs. 4,00,000/- to the informant and has been granted anticipatory bail by another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 44185 of 2022 under order dated 16.11.2022, annexed as Annexure-2 to the bail application. The petitioner has clean antecedent as stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail application.

¶23

Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

¶24

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioner, in the event of his arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.

¶25

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39738 of 2023(4) dt.05-12-2023 4/4

¶26

20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court concerned, Bhagalpur in connection with Industrial P.S.Case No. 03 of 2022, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶27

The application stands allowed.

¶28

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J)

¶29

U.K./- U T

Rahul Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Kumar 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

Devendra Sahani Vs The State of Bihar

Ritesh Kumar @ Siya Saran Yadav @ Siya Sharan Vs the State of Bihar

Ashok Chaudhary @ Ashok Kumar Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Rameshwar Choubey Vs The State of Bihar

Dhiraj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Chandu Kumari Vs The State of Bihar