IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11078 of 2010 SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR O.P. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Tribhuwan Narayan Advocate. For the State : Mr. Ajay Mishra, A.P.P. For the Informant: Mr. Rajiv Kr. Sinha, Advocate. ----------- 2 12.5.2010 Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with complaint case no. 1157 of 2009 corresponding to Tr. No. 3046 of 2009 in which cognizance has been taken under section 120B, 467, 471 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of certain orders passed in Second Appeal No. 169 of 1999 allowing the claim of Swami Triyoganandji Maharaj @ Ram Narayan Prasad @ Ram Narayan Bind also to be legal heir of deceased Swami Shiv DharmanandJi Maharaj, he entered into an agreement for sale of certain properties with co-accused Rama Singh. Co-accused Rama Singh has filed a suit for Specific Performance of Contract. 4. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that only allegation against the petitioner is that he is a witness on two documents executed by co-accused Swami Triyoganandji Maharaj @ Ram Narayan Prasad, but he is not the - 2 - beneficiary of the aforesaid transaction. It is claimed that the entire dispute being civil in nature and the matter being subjudiced before this Court in the Second Appeal, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed any criminal offence. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant as also learned A.P.P. have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioner and have submitted that in fact the petitioner is in league with co-accused persons and, therefore, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail in the present case. 6. This Court while considering the prayer for anticipatory bail of one Shyam Lal Chauhan and others in Cr. Misc. No. 11019 of 2010 has discussed in detail about the civil dispute going on between the complainant at one side and co- accused Swami Triyoganandji Maharaj @ Ram Narayan Prasad and others on the other side and after considering the aforesaid background Cr. Misc. No. 11019/2010 has already been allowed. Reasons given in Cr. Misc. No. 11019 of 2010 regarding the civil dispute between the contesting parties shall be treated as part of this order also. 7. For the reasons recorded above, and the entire - 3 - dispute being civil in nature , and further petitioner being merely a witness of agreement to sale, in the event of arrest or surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks from today, the above named petitioner in the above noted case 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 J.M. Ist class, Patna subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and subject to further conditions : (a) That one of the bailors must be Govt. servant or close family member of the petitioner who will file an affidavit in the court below showing his/her relationship with the petitioner. (b) That petitioner shall make regular pairvi in the court below in the present case either by appearing himself in person or through representation by his lawyer on each and every dates, and if on two consecutive dates petitioner fails to make pairvi, then the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bond of the petitioner. ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J. ) M.Rahman