IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.4999 of 2010 BINDESHWARI YADAV son of Late Basudeo Yadav Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2/ 11.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State as well as the complainant. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence under Sections 467, 468, 420, 323, 427 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant states in paragraph 1 that father of accused no.1 and 2 sold about three Kathas of land to the complainant on 03.01.1989. In the aforesaid complaint, the accused no. 4, who is petitioner here, was a witness. It is alleged that at behest of petitioner, the aforesaid land was sold to accused no.3 Pramod Yadav by accused nos. 1 and 2, who happens to be the son of this petitioner. Informant submits that the aforesaid sale could not be affected without active connivance of this petitioner. The petitioner submits that he does not figure in any manner with respect to sale deed, which was executed by accused nos.1 and 2 in favour of his son. He further submits that he is neither a witness nor an identifier nor he gave any consideration money to the vendor. He further submits that the complainant on no material basis states that it was this petitioner, who persuaded accused nos. 1 and 2 to execute the sale deed in favour of his deed. It would appear that the land in question was earlier sold to the complainant by the father of accused nos. 1 and 2. In such - 2 - circumstances, accused nos. 1 and 2 ought to have restrained from selling the land to accused no.3. It would appear that the main beneficiary would be accused no.3. In the circumstances, in the event of arrest or surrender within six weeks from today before the court below in connection with Complaint case no. 107 C of 2007, above named petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) with one sureties in form of cash to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Saharsa, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the condition that he will not physically absent for two consecutive dates till four witnesses are examined, otherwise the court in seisin of the case would cancel the bail bond of the petitioner. With the aforesaid observation, this application is allowed to the extent mentioned above. (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)