IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.26804 of 2011 Triveni Prasad Versus The State Of Bihar ***** 04. 14.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 2268(C)/2009 for the offences under section 420/406/120B/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Patna. Petitioner is one of the named accused in this complaint case and this is second attempt of the petitioner for anticipatory bail. Earlier application bearing Cr. Misc. No. 5729/2011 was dismissed as withdrawn after some arguments vide order dated 26.03.2011. Submission is that two co-accused who are none else than sons of petitioner and executant of the deed in favour of the complainant have already been granted the privilege by a Bench of this court vide order dated 20.05.2011 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 15639/2011. Petitioner carries allegation of being identifier of his two sons at the time of execution of sale deed in favour of complainant with respect to a piece of land purchased, of course, by the petitioner but in the names of his two sons and subsequently taking advantage of absence of the purchasers for sometime due to some unavoidable circumstances all the three accused i.e. petitioner and his two sons entered into an agreement with a developer and constructed apartment. Further submission of the petitioner is that initially complaint case was dismissed finding no material to proceed against the accused persons for the offences under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, but by virtue of order of the Revisional Court case was revived and being proceeded with and also the complainant has filed T.S. No. 412 of 2009 in the court of Sub-Judge – I Patna, and the petitioner an ailing and retired Chief Personnel Manager of the central Coal Fields Ltd., has also filed Complaint Case No. 1035(C) of 2009 on 02.09.2009 before A.C.J.M., Danapur. True, it is that two co-accused who are sons of the petitioner have already been granted the privilege, but as it appears from paragraph 3 of the order on the submission that they were minors at relevant time. To substantiate their minority respective birth certificates have also been filed showing their respective date of birth as 02.02.1973 and 12.12.1976 and such persons undoubtedly were as per records minor at the time of execution of the sale deed in favour of the complainant on 30.05.1990. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor while objecting the prayer submits that evil intention of the well qualified petitioner being father of the two sons who may or may not be minors (minors on the basis of recorded date of birth) is quite evident by own conduct of the petitioner who not only presented his above two sons before the transferee but also identified them as the person competent (major) to execute sale deed and admit its execution before the competent authority i.e. Registrar. One may could imagine such evil intention since beginning and its due execution in a very calculated and planned manner to achieve the goal of getting handsom consideration. Considering the facts and circumstances, petitioner appears not entitled for the privilege sought. Accordingly, second attempt for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is also turned down. Rajeev/ ( Akhilesh Chandra, J.)