IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1096 of 2011 Satya Narayan Singh s/o Harihar Singh, R/V-Rupaspur, P.S. Rupaspur, District- Patna. Versus The State Of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna having its office of old Secretariat, Patna. ----------- 3 24.11.2011 An FIR was instituted as against the petitioner giving rise to Digha P.S.Case no. 121 of 2011 under Sections 420,467,468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code by one Nepali Raut s/o late Mahavir Raut, resident of Mohalla- Ramjichak , P.S. Digha, District- Patna. It was alleged that for a consideration of Rs. 29 lakhs the informant had agreed to sell the land to the petitioner and to facilitate the said agreement, a General Power of Attorney was executed by Nepali Raut, Surendra Raut, Satrudhan Raut and Mahohar Raut being brothers in favour of the petitioner. The General Power of Attorney is dated 30.1.2010. It appears that allegedly the petitioner, on the strength of General Power of Attorney, sold the land in question but apart from advance of Rs. 5 lakhs given to the informant did not pay the balance amount. On coming to know the informant accordingly lodged the said case in which the petitioner was taken into custody. While petitioner moving bail application for his bail before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Patna, by order dated 5.11.11 as passed in B.P.No.4166 of 2011, the Court directed his release from custody upon payment of Rs. 24 lakhs 2 to the informant’s side, which he voluntarily offered to pay, subject to petitioner’s furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount. This order was then modified by the said Court on 11.11.2011 directing that the payment of Rs. 24 lakhs would be either in cash or draft as found fit by the trial Court. The petitioner accordingly immediately deposited in the trial Court, as directed, a cheque of Rs. 24 lakhs, dated 8.11.2011 drawn on H.D.F.C. Bank, Patna in the name of four brothers. The Court still refused to release the petitioner and asked the petitioner to make out a cheque in the name of the informant alone. Now the petitioner deposited yet another cheque, dated 9.11.2011, for Rs. 24 lakhs in favour of Nepali Raut alone. Now the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has issued notice to the informant to appear though all this is known to the informant as at the time when the bail application was argued before the Sessions Court he was present to oppose the bail application. The result is that notwithstanding the petitioner having deposited the aforesaid cheque, he is still languishing in jail. He has already furnished bail bond as directed by the Court. We have considered the matter. In our view it is not in dispute that a General Power of Attorney was executed by the four brothers including Nepali Raut, who is the eldest. Therefore, it is apparent that the land in question belongs to them. The petitioner having voluntered to pay the amount of Rs. 24 lakhs, we deem it proper that the two cheques issued by him earlier being Cheque no. 024628 dated 8.11.2011 drawn on 3 H.D.F.C. Bank in the name of four brothers and cheque no. 24629 dated 9.11.2011 in the name of Nepali Raut alone for Rs. 24 lakhs be cancelled by the Court and returned to the petitioner. Now the petitioner would deposit in the Court demand drafts/ Banker Cheques of Rs. 6 lakhs each drawn in favour of each of the four brothers individually. Upon deposit of the four demand drafts/ Banker Cheques, as aforesaid, the petitioner would be released from custody forthwith .The demand drafts/ Banker Cheques, as deposited, would be withdrawn by the four persons named therein upon proper identification and subject to the result of the said criminal case after taking undertaking on affidavit from all four of them in this regard. It goes without saying that the payment being made by the petitioner would be without prejudice of his rights in any manner. With the aforesaid observation and direction the writ petition is disposed of. Singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.) (Ashwani Kumar Singh,J)