Pramod Kumar vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 1291 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 28100 of 2020
      Arising Out of PS.Case No.-184 Year-2019 Thana- KANTI THARMAL POWER District-
                                           Muzaffarpur
     ======================================================

1. Pramod Kumar (Male), aged about 35 years, Son of Late Bhikhari Choudhary.

2. Nawal Kishore Choudhary (Male), aged about 51 years, Son of Yogendra Choudhary.

3. Manoj Chaudhary (Male), aged about 49 years, Son of Nagendra Chaudhary.

All resident of Village- Kaparpura, PS- Kanti, District- Muzaffarpur.

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

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar Manglam, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Informant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar @ S K Anjana, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 05-03-2021

Heard Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar Manglam, learned

counsel for the petitioners; Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, learned

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

for the State and Mr. Sanjay Kumar @ S K Anjana, learned

counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with

Kanti PS Case No. 184 of 2019 dated 14.03.2019, instituted under

Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 470 and 471 of the Indian Penal

Code.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28100 of 2020 dt.05-03-2021

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that he had

sold land which did not belong to him after fraudulently getting

the name of his grandfather entered in the revenue records.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

there are discrepancies in the revenue records as at places the

name of the grandfather of the petitioners is mentioned as husband

of Ram Sundari Devi whereas at other places, the name of the

husband of Ram Sundari Devi is mentioned as Ram Avatar

Chaudhary. It was submitted that the land belonged to Ram

Sundari Devi and that Ram Sundari Devi was the grandmother of

the petitioners and not the informant. It was submitted that even in

the report of the officers, it has been stated that in the Register-II,

the name of Ram Sundari Devi shows her husband's name as

Hiraman, which has been encircled and in place of that Ram

Avatar Chaudhary has been written, which clearly reflects that the

grandfather of the petitioners was the person whose wife Ram

Sundari Devi was the owner of the lands in question, and by that

account, the petitioners being the direct descendants, have rightly

executed the sale deed and further that the purchaser has been put

in possession. Learned counsel submitted that such dispute with

regard to identity is also a civil matter and the process of the

criminal Court should not have been invoked. Learned counsel Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28100 of 2020 dt.05-03-2021

submitted that reliance of the informant on a sale deed of the year

1943 is also misplaced as such sale deed is in the name of Ram

Avatar Mahto and not Ram Avatar Chaudhary and further that the

name of Ram Sundari Devi in the revenue records could not have

been possible if the sale deed was in favour of Ram Avatar Mahto

or Ram Avatar Chaudhary and such mutation has to be in the

name of the purchaser and not the wife of the purchaser.

5. Learned APP, from the case diary, submitted that in

the village, there were two Ram Sundari Devi and the name of the

husband of the two women was Ram Avatar Chaudhary and

Hiraman and the informant is the descendant from Ram Avatar

Chaudhary whereas the petitioners are the descendant of Hiraman.

It was submitted that during the course of investigation, it has

been found that the land in question is the same land though

bearing a new number now with regard to which there is a sale

deed in favour of Ram Bilash Mahto of the year 1943.

6. Learned counsel for the informant, drawing the

attention of the Court to the counter affidavit filed by him

submitted that the sale deed clearly indicates that 60 decimals of

the said plot was purchased by his grandfather and the present

dispute of 37 decimals is part of that 60 decimals. It was further

submitted that it is for the petitioners to explain as to how the land Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28100 of 2020 dt.05-03-2021

which was bought by Ram Avatar Mahto or Ram Avatar

Chaudhary can be claimed by the descendants of Hiraman. It was

submitted that the sale deed has been executed by the petitioners

and they has to explain how they was competent to execute the

sale deed not being the grandsons of Ram Avatar Mahto or Ram

Avatar Chaudhary.

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 application stands dismissed.

9. However, if the petitioners appear before the Court

below within four weeks from today and pray for bail, the same

shall be considered on its own merits, in accordance with law,

without being prejudiced by the present order.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR U T