IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35736 of 2011 1. Nand Kishore Singh, S/o Late Bhrigunath Singh. 2. Urmila Devi, W/o Nand Kishore Singh. Versus The State Of Bihar ----------- 2 24.10.2011 The petitioners seek anticipatory bail as they apprehend their arrest in Digha P.S. Case No. 87 of 2011 for the offences alleged under Sections 406, 420, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 138 of N.I. Act. According to the first information report, the petitioner no.1 is stated to have sold a portion of land belonging to him vide plot no. 1717 situated in Digha, Patna to one Ram Nagina Tiwary, the informant. It has been alleged that despite having made a payment of Rs. 17,54,000/- (seventeen lac and fifty four thousand) to the petitioner by way of consideration for purchase of the land, the informant has been obstructed by some persons from putting up a boundary wall. As such the informant sought to claim refund of the aforesaid amount from the petitioners which however was being evaded, thus leading to the instant first information report. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that primarily the entire dispute, if at all, is of civil nature and the lodging of the first information report is wholly misconceived. Moreover, it has been stated with reference to Annexures 3 to 6 that the petitioner no.1 is the owner of plot no. 1717 measuring about 86 ½ decimals (approximately 27 kathas) out of which portions have been sold on different occasions. The petitioner has entered into an agreement for sale of 14 kathas out of the 2 said plot in terms of the sale agreement dated 24.01.2001 and again he has sold 4 kathas out of the same plot vide registered deed dated 01.03.2005, each of which are independent transaction entered into on different occasions. It has been stated that the learned Sessions Judge has fallen into error in carrying the impression that the petitioner has sold the same portion of the plot over again to different persons which has led him to reject the petitioners’ application for anticipatory bail in A.B.P. No. 3248 of 2011. Heard learned counsel for the State. Considering that the transaction in question appears essentially to be a civil nature and also considering that the petitioner has prima facie made out the case to show that different portions of the plot no. 1717 have been sold and it is not a case of selling the same land over and over again, let the petitioners, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within six weeks from the date of production/receipt of a copy of this order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- ( ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in connection with Digha P.S. Case No. 87 of 2011, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr. P.C. Md. Ibrarul (Vikash Jain, J.)