IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.31995 of 2009 FIROZ MUNSHI @ MD.FIROZ @ MD.FIROZ MUNSHI Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Radha Mohan Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, A.P.P. ---------- 4 19.5.2010 Heard the parties. In a criminal prosecution for offences under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code as also under section 3(1) of the SC & ST (P.O.A) Act, the informant, a tribal widow lady, claims to have negotiated for purchasing 3 kathas of land for Rs. 24,000/ from one Bablu and after receiving money, she was put to possession over the same by the vendor. For the purpose of getting the sale deed executed, the petitioner is alleged to have taken Rs. 30,000/- from the informant, but despite payment of aforesaid money neither sale deed was executed in favour of the informant nor money was returned by the petitioner. At the very out set it is submitted that provisions under section 3(1) of SC & ST (P.O.A.) Act are not applicable in the present case and, therefore, the present petition under section 438 Cr.P.C. is maintainable. The submission appears to be correct. Without going into the merit of the case and in response to a query made by the court, learned counsel for the petitioner has taken a very fair stand that the petitioner is prepared to return of Rs.30,000/- to the informant provided the payment made by the petitioner is not construed as admission of his guilt. However, he further states that some sort of compromise petition has been filed in the court on 10.2.2010 and pursuant to the aforesaid compromise some amount was paid to the informant by the - 2 - petitioner and , therefore, according to him amount which has already been paid to the informant may be adjusted towards the total amount of Rs. 30,000/- In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is directed that petitioner shall deposit Rs. 30,000/- in the court within a period of four weeks from today, which on proper identification and verification shall be paid to the O.P. No.2 (informant) . However, if pursuant to the compromise arrived at on 10.2.2010, some amount has been paid to the informant by the petitioner, then that much amount may be deducted from the total amount of Rs. 30,000/- and only balance amount is required to be paid by the petitioner. If as directed above, the amount is deposited within the time frame, then within the same time in the event of arrest or surrender in the court below the above named petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M, in connection with Kishanganj P.S. Case no. 255 of 2008, subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) Cr.P.C. However, it is made clear that if the amount as directed above is not deposited by the petitioner within the time frame, then it will be construed that prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail has finally been rejected by this court and in that case he would be obliged to surrender in the court below and seek regular bail. It is further clarified that the amount deposited by the petitioner and paid to the O.P. no.2 - 3 - shall not be construed as admission of guilt of the petitioner during the course of the trial. ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J. ) M.Rahman