Arbind Kumar @ Dilip Kumar Mahto vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 4225 Patna

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 9057 of 2021
       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1445 Year-2019 Thana- DARBHANGA COMPLAINT CASE
                                         District- Darbhanga
      ======================================================

1. Arbind Kumar @ Dilip Kumar Mahto, aged about 40 years, Male Son of Raghunath Mahto.

2. Tulsi Das, aged about 25 years, Male, Son of Sukhdeo Mahto.

3. Ram Singh @ Ram Prasad Singh, aged about 41 years, Male, Son of Achelal Mahto.

4. Deepak Kumar, aged about 20 years, Male, Son of Ram Sudeen Mahto.

All resident of Village-Mayapur, PS- Bahera, District- Darbhanga.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Mahesh Kumar, Son of Yugeshwar Mahto, Resident of Village-Baghath, PS-

Manigacchi, District-Darbhanga.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

      For the Petitioner/s   :      Mr. Vinay Kumar Mishra, Advocate
      For the State          :      Mr. Dilip Kumar No. 1, APP
      For the Informant      :      Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha, Advocate

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 23-08-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Vinay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel

for the petitioners; Mr. Dilip Kumar No. 1, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the

'APP') for the State and Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha, learned

counsel for the informant.

3. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with

Complaint Case CR No. 1445 of 2019 dated 19.09.2019, Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9057 of 2021 dt.23-08-2021

instituted under Sections 324, 341 and 384 of the Indian Penal

Code.

4. The allegation against the petitioners is of having

assaulted the complainant and also of putting him to fear of

death on the point of knife due to demand of extortion of rupees

ten thousand and also of taking away rupees eighteen thousand

cash and clothes worth Rs.7650/- from the complainant.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is

a false case and that is the reason why no police case has been

filed despite the fact that the incident is said to have taken place in

the main market. It was further submitted that though the

allegation is that the incident took place on 18.09.2019, but the

complainant neither moving before the police nor there being any

averment that the police refused to entertain the application, the

story in the complaint becomes highly doubtful and suspicious. It

was submitted that the brother of the informant had earlier filed

MR No. 205 of 2019 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate,

Benipur against the petitioners no. 1, 2 and 3 and the father of the

petitioner no. 4, under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 with regard to land dispute in which, by final

order dated 31.08.2019, the case was disposed of observing that

the second parties, including the petitioners, were law abiding Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9057 of 2021 dt.23-08-2021

citizens and if the first party (informant's brother) had any

grievance, he may raise it before the Civil Court.

6. The Court upon hearing learned counsel for the

petitioners and learned APP for the State had issued notice to the

complainant-opposite party no. 2. The petitioners have also filed

supplementary affidavit.

7. Learned counsel submitted that the entire lands in

question were gifted voluntarily by the predecessors-in-interest of

the complainant for the construction of temple and because the

complainant was trying to interfere in the possession of such land

by claiming it to be his private land, the villagers and the

petitioners had objected to the same just to maintain the sanctity

of the land of the temple, due to which the present false case has

been instituted. It was submitted that from perusal of the order

dated 31.08.2019, of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Benipur in

MR No. 205 of 2019, it would be clear that there is no dispute

with regard to the lands in question belonging to the temple and

further, the first party i.e., the informant's side, if so aggrieved was

free to raise the issue before the Civil Court. Thus, it was

submitted that when the lands in dispute did not belong to the

informant, there could not have been any demand of extortion by

anyone, including the petitioners.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9057 of 2021 dt.23-08-2021

8. Learned APP submitted that the Sub Divisional

Magistrate, Benipur has clearly held that the lands belonged to the

temple and there was no dispute with regard to the same.

9. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that

the petitioners had demanded extortion. However, he was not in a

position to answer as to how the said land which is claimed by the

complainant belonged to him in view of the order of the Sub

Divisional Magistrate, Benipur in MR No. 205 of 2019 dated

31.08.2019, more so, when despite liberty given to move before

the Civil Court, the same has not been done and rather after more

than one month of the said order, the present complaint case has

been filed.

10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of

the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it

appears that the complainant is claiming ownership of land which

has not been found to belong to him, in a proceeding which was

filed by the brother of the complainant in which it has been held

that the lands belonged to the temple and were in its possession

and there was no controversy and observation was made that if

any claim was there on the side of the complainant's brother, he

could approach the Civil Court and the same not having been

done, the present complaint case having been filed after over a Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9057 of 2021 dt.23-08-2021

month of the said order, as also the fact that another complaint

case has been filed by the said brother of the complainant who had

filed the MR case, the Court is persuaded to grant pre-arrest bail

to the petitioners.

11. Accordingly, in the event of arrest or surrender

before the Court below within six weeks from today, the

petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.

25,000/- (twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like

amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Darbhanga in Complaint Case CR No. 1445 of 2019,

subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and further, (i) that one of the bailors

shall be a close relative of the petitioners, (ii) that the petitioners

and the bailors shall execute bond and give undertaking with

regard to good behaviour of the petitioners and (iii) that they shall

co-operate with the Court and police/prosecution. Any violation of

the terms and conditions of the bonds or the undertaking or failure

to co-operate shall lead to cancellation of their bail bonds.

12. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any

violation of the foregoing conditions by the petitioners, to the

notice of the Court concerned, which shall take immediate action

on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9057 of 2021 dt.23-08-2021

13. The petition stands disposed of in the

aforementioned terms.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR U T