IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.57043 of 2007 BALESHWAR THAKUR,SON OF SRI ROUSHAN THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHAGURI, P.S. KALYANPUR, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. ----- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAM NARAYAN MAHTO, SON OF LATE RATAN MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BELSANDIDEEH, P.S. BIBHUTIPUR, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR ----- OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 3 6.4.2010 Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of discharge on the ground that there is insufficient material for the Court to proceed against him considering the case made out by the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant has given a statement that this occurrence has taken place because the accused Baleshwar Thakur had taken Rs. 40,000/- as loan from the complainant for the marriage of his daughter and had promised to execute six kathas of land in favour of the informant. Despite notice he has not executed the said land in favour of the informant. For these reasons it is said that this false complain case has been filed. It is said that both parties are railway employees and well known to each other and as such the entire occurrence as narrated in the complaint petition is unbelievable and absurd. Learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that the complainant is obviously telling a lie, inasmuch he has denied before the Court below that notice is issued to him while hearing the bail application. The record would show that the complainant had appeared at the stage when the bail was filed and as such his entire story should be disbelieved and thrown out of the Court. 2 These aspects of the matter should be considered by the Court while disposing of the matter. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)