Manisha Sahay Vs The State of Bihar

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19314 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-679 Year-2022 Thana- PURNIA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPurnia

¶3

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

¶4

Manisha Sahay, Wife Of Ravi Ranjan Sahay Resident Of Rang Bhumi Maidan, P.O.-Purnea, P.S.-K.Hat, District-Purnea, Bihar.

¶5

Ravi Ranjan Sahay, Son Of Late Ras Bihari Sahay Resident Of Rang Bhumi Maidan, P.O.-Purnea, P.S.-K.Hat, District-Purnea, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

The State Of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Brajesh Kumar Tiwari For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Mohammad Sufyan

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA

¶13

ORAL ORDER

¶14

3 04-07-2024

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

¶16

learned APP for the State.

¶17

The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, submits that petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and are husband and wife and from perusal of the office report dated 28.06.2024, it would manifest that the same records that the Postal Peon reported that the receiver did not meet at the given address after repeated visits and family members refused to take the notice.

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19314 of 2024(3) dt.04-07-2024 2/5

¶20

In view of the office report dated 28.06.2024, the notice is deemed to have been validly served.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the complaint, it would manifest that a purely civil dispute has been given a criminal colour. It is next submitted that the complainant alleges that he had entered into an agreement for sale with the petitioners on 29.12.2021 for purchasing 02 Bigha, 15 Kattha and 14 dhoors of land at the rate of Rs.5 Lac per kattha within 10 months of the date of signing of the agreement for sale. It is further alleged that the complainant also gave Rs.6 Lacs for the Shradh of mother in-law of the petitioner no.1. It is next alleged that the petitioners did not execute the sale deed despite entering into an agreement for sale and thus, misappropriated an amount of Rs.11 Lacs.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant had entered into an agreement for sale with the petitioners on 29.12.2021 for purchasing their land within the time stipulated in the said agreement, but then, complainant did not pay the amount as agreed within the stipulated time, as such, the petitioners sold the said land to different persons including one Sunil Kumar Mehta by executing a sale deed after

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19314 of 2024(3) dt.04-07-2024 3/5

¶24

29.12.2021. It is submitted that the petitioners were completely unaware that the complainant had already entered into an agreement for sale with Sunil Kumar Mehta with respect to the land of the petitioners which he intended to purchase as detailed in the agreement for sale dated 29.12.2021. It is submitted that when petitioners sold the part of the land to Sunil Kumar Mehta, then this fact came to their notice that he had already given an amount of Rs.11 Lacs to the complainant for purchasing the land of the petitioners. The said fact was also confirmed by the complainant, as such, it is submitted that the petitioners sold their land to Sunil Kumar Mehta and the amount of Rs.11 Lacs with Sunil Kumar Mehta had given to the complainant was adjusted by him while purchasing the land of the petitioners. It is thus submitted that the amount of Rs.11 Lacs which the complainant had given to the petitioners got adjusted when they sold their land to Sunil Kumar Mehta.

¶25

The the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners next submits that inadvertently at Para-12, it has been pleaded that petitioners are ready to return only Rs.11 Lacs which they had taken by way of advance when it ought to have been that the amount of Rs.11 Lacs which the petitioners had taken by way of advance from the complainant got adjusted

¶26

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19314 of 2024(3) dt.04-07-2024 4/5

¶27

when they sold their land to Sunil Kumar Mehta.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that this perhaps explains why the notice was not received by the opposite party no.2 and his family members also refused to take the notice as the complainant was aware that this fact would come to the fore. It is further submitted that had the petitioners owed Rs.11 Lacs to the complainant, in that event, the complainant would have definitely taken the notice to contest the case.

¶29

It is further submitted that petitioners will not abscond rather will cooperate in the trial.

¶30

Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail

¶31

application.

¶32

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners, abovenamed, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks, are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Purnea in connection with Complaint Case No.679 of 2022, subject to the conditions laid down under

¶33

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19314 of 2024(3) dt.04-07-2024 5/5

¶34

Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

¶35

The application stands allowed.

¶36

(Satyavrat Verma, J)

¶37

vikash/-

¶38

U T

Manisha Sahay v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manisha Sahay v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Samirul Haque @ Samirul Vs The State of Bihar

Santosh Pandit @ Santosh Kumhar @ Santosh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Dayanand Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Ramjee Vs The State of Bihar

Arun Patel Vs The State of Bihar