Mahabir Yadav vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 2857 Patna

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 34707 of 2020
                Arising Out of PS Case No.-134 Year-2019 Thana- PARAIYA District- Gaya
      ======================================================

1. Mahabir Yadav, aged about 48 years, Male.

2. Karu Yadav, aged about 35 years, Male.

Both sons of Late Rohan Yadav.

3. Mahendra Yadav, aged about 48 years, Male, Son of Jagdish Yadav.

All are resident of Village - Sikandarpur, PS- Paraiya, District- Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar

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

      For the Petitioner/s       :        Mr. Gaurav Govind, Advocate
      For the State              :        Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, APP

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 30-06-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Gaurav Govind, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the

State.

3. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with

Paraiya PS Case No. 134 of 2019 dated 01.09.2019, instituted

under Sections 384, 385/34 of the Indian Penal Code

4. The allegation against the petitioners is that when the

informant went on his land, they abused him and demanded Rs.

50,000/- as extortion money. It is further alleged that earlier also Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34707 of 2020 dt.30-06-2021

they had done the same thing for which Paraiya PS Case No. 21 of

2013 was instituted.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

earlier also case under sections 321, 341, 427, 379, 342/34 of the

Indian Penal Code was filed on 19.03.2013 against the petitioners.

It was submitted that the land belongs to the petitioners and that

the father of the petitioner no. 1 and 2, namely Rohan Yadav and

father of petitioner no. 3, namely Jagdish Yadav, have filed Title

Suit No. 59 of 2010, against the vendors of the land in question

which has been transferred in favour of the brother of the

informant, Indrajeet Sharma, in which relief of permanent

injunction of the suit lands, including the land in question, has

been sought. Learned counsel submitted that after the institution

of the case, the land in question were transferred to the brother of

the informant by sale deed on 20.07.2012 by the defendants

Basanti Kumari and her son Pankaj Kumar. Learned counsel

submitted that after such purchase, Indrajeet Sharma has also been

impleaded as defendant no. 3 in the suit, which is still pending.

Learned counsel submitted that the son of late Rohan Yadav had

also lodged Paraiya PS Case No. 22 of 2013 on 19.03.20213,

against the informant in which cognizance under Sections 147,

323, 341, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken on Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34707 of 2020 dt.30-06-2021

20.06.2016 and non-bailable warrant of arrest is pending against

the informant in the said case. Learned counsel submitted that

pursuant to liberty granted to file supplementary affidavit, the

same has been done in which it has been stated that the land in

question is the land which is also part of the lands for which Title

Suit No. 59 of 2010 has been filed.

6. Learned APP submitted that the land in question were

transferred by registered sale deed in the year 2012 in favour of

the brother of the informant and till date, there is no injunction or

any other order against the vendors, who may be a defendant in

the suit, but in the revenue records, they have been shown to be

the owners. It was submitted that in the suit which has been filed,

it has been accepted that the vendors of the brother of the

informant were claiming title on the basis of a registered sale deed

in favour of their ancestors dated 29.01.1952 and further that the

chak khatiyan entry is in favour of the defendants, though in the

suit it has been stated that the same is wrong and that the sale deed

dated 27.01.1952 is also void. However, it was submitted that

from perusal of the pleading of the suit, copy of which has been

made Annexure-2 to the present application, it is apparent that

neither there is any prayer to declare the sale deed dated

29.01.1952 as void or for correction of the chak entry and the only Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34707 of 2020 dt.30-06-2021

relief claimed is that the defendant be permanently restrained from

interfering in the peaceful possession of the suit lands, including

the present land. Thus, learned APP submitted that the suit itself is

of no value on the basis of admitted position and it is apparent that

from the petitioners' side, no steps have been taken to get the suit

decided. It was submitted that it is obvious that as of now, the

informant side has a legal and valid document with regard to the

lands in question which makes it obvious that it is the

petitioners/accused who are creating problems and the allegation

appears to be correct.

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

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

is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.

8. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR U T