IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, BANKA
Present : Krishna Kant Tripathi
Sessions Judge, Banka
Banka Dated 6th February, 2023
Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 166 of 2023
Md. Tanveer Alam & Ors. ]...Petitioners/Accused persons
Versus
The State of Bihar ]...Opposite Party
Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Subhash Chandra, Adv.
Counsel for the State : Sri Hira Lal Singh, P.P.
06.02.2023 ORDER
This anticipatory bail petition u/s 438 CrPC has been filed on
behalf of petitioners-accused persons, namely, 1. Md. Tanveer Alam, 2.
Vidhya Ravidas and 3. Md. Shain, who are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Dhankund Police Station Case No. 121 of 2022, under
Section(s) 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 384, 379, 504, 506 of IPC.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-accused
persons, the learned P.P. for the State and perused the photo stat copy
of case diary kept with ABP No. 2700 of 2022.
The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that for the
occurrence dated 13.06.2020 to 11.11.2022, the informant-
complainant has lodged the FIR against the petitioners-accused
persons and co-accused persons. In the FIR, basically it is mentioned
that the petitioners-accused persons and co-accused persons by
committing cheat and forgery executed Kewala of the land of the
informant-complainant appertaining to Thana no. 266, Khata no. 01,
Khesra nos. 122, 42, 49, 50, 52, 54 and Area 4.92 Acre. The described
land is in the name of the father of the informant-complainant, namely,
Bhavnath Jha. The petitioners-accused persons and co-accused persons
committed theft of paddy crops grown on the land of the informant-
complainant. The petitioners-accused persons and co-accused persons
demanded extortion amount of Rs. 5 lakh from the informant-
complainant and threatened her to kill.
The learned counsel for petitioners-accused persons has
argued that the petitioners-accused persons are quite innocent and
they have not committed any offence. It is further argued that the
petitioner no. 1 is the present Jamabandi raiyat of the land in question.
Petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are sellers of the land in question and they were
the heirs of Khatiyani raiyat. It is a case of civil dispute. Petitioners-
accused persons have no criminal antecedent. On these basis, a prayer
has been made to allow this anticipatory bail petition.
On the other hand, the learned P.P. for the State has opposed
the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners-accused persons.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, after hearing to
the learned counsels for the parties and by perusal of the contents of
the FIR and the case diary, it is clear that the role of the petitioners-
accused persons and co-accused persons has been assigned for
purchasing and selling the land of the informant-complainant by
committing cheat and forgery. The petitioners-accused persons and co-
accused persons committed theft of paddy crops of the informant-
complainant and demanded extortion amount of Rs. 5 lakh from her.
Under paras 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,
23 of the case diary, there are sufficient evidences against the
petitioners-accused persons. Considering these facts, I am not inclined
to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners-accused
persons.
It is, therefore, ordered that the present anticipatory bail
petition u/s 438 CrPC filed on behalf of the petitioners-accused
persons, named above, is rejected.
(Dictated)
Sd/-
(Krishna Kant Tripathi)
Sessions Judge, Banka
06.02.2023
Memo No………………… Banka, Dated, the 6th February, 2023.
Copy forwarded to learned SDJM, Banka for information and needful.
Court Manager,
Banka
