IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.41931 of 2011 ====================================================== KAUSHMI DEVI @ KASHMI DEVI, WIFE OF SITARAM MISTRI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SONDIHA, POLICE STATION SHERGHATI, DISTRICT GAYA .... .... PETITIONER/S VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAMESH MISTRI, SON OF KAULESHWAR MISTRI 3. SHAMBHU MISTRI @ SHAMBHU SHARMA, SON OF PARMESHWAR MISTRI 4. PARMESHWAR MISTRI @ RAM PRAVESH MISTRI, SON OF LATE SUKAN MISTRI 2-4 ARE RESIDENT OF DHIBARA, POLICE STATION AMAS, DISTRICT GAYA .... .... OPPOSITE PARTY/S ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN) 2 21-12-2011 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the A.P.P. representing the State. This case has arisen out of a complaint case. It is alleged that the petitioner along with others were sitting at a place waiting for the complainant and when he came to the spot, he took away Rs. 24,000/- from the complainant. It is also stated in paragraph 2 of the complaint petition that there is some sort of dispute with respect to an agreement regarding sale of a land. On the basis of the said complaint petition, a case was instituted under Section 394, 323, 341, 504 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The pleadings in the complaint petition indicates that Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41931 of 2011 (2) dt.21-12-2011 2 / 2 2 there was a land dispute between the parties and that the informant’s husband and the petitioner were related to each other, being the brother-in-law (sala) of Opposite Party No. 2. It appears that this case has prima facie been filed because of the land dispute and the dispute regarding exchange of money. Counsel appearing on behalf of the informant has filed this application for cancellation of bail on the ground that the Court did not consider that a case is made out under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. Although, the informant was present in Court while arguments were made, this fact was not placed before this Court. Be that as it may, I find that this aspect cannot influence the fact that (a) the case arises out of a complaint petition; (b) that the parties are related to each other and (c) that there is land dispute and the dispute regarding exchange of money, which has led to the filing of the present case. In the facts and circumstances aforesaid, this application for cancellation of bail on the ground aforesaid is rejected. Prabhakar Anand/- (Sheema Ali Khan, J)