The petitioners were released on bail after being arrested under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 448, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code: High court of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 229121 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 127 Year 2020 Thana DUMRAON District Buxar 1. Ramlal Goswami aged about 44 years Male S o Late Gauri Shankar 2. Dharmshila Devi @ Savita Devi aged about 35 years wife of Ramlal Both resident of village Badka Dhakaich P.S. Krishna Brahm District ... Petitioner s ... Opposite Party s The State of Bihar Appearance : For the Petitioner s For the State CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Mr. Manoj Kumar with Mr. Anil Kumar Roy Advocates Mr. Ram Sumiran Roy APP The matter has been heard via video conferencing. 2. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar learned counsel along with Mr. Anil Kumar Roy learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ram Sumiran Roy learned Additional Public Prosecutorfor the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he may be permitted to add alias name of petitioner no. 2 which is Savita Devi. 4. Prayer allowed. 5. Let necessary correction be made in the cause title Date : 03 08 2021 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 229121 dt.03 08 2021 2 4 by learned counsel for the petitioners through e mode by day after tomorrow. 6. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Dumraon PS Case No. 1220 dated 15.04.2020 instituted under Sections 406 420 467 468 471 448 506 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. The allegation against the petitioners is that the informant who is the cousin brother of petitioner no. 1 had bought land through the petitioner no. 1 but he was cheated both with regard to the rates as also that the same piece of land being sold by the petitioners to two different persons. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the FIR itself it has been stated that the informant had sold his land at a much higher price than the price he was paying for the land which he alleges to have been negotiated by the petitioner no. 1 for him. Further it was submitted that all such dispute relating to money is a purely civil in nature for which criminal case is an abuse of the process of the Court. Learned counsel submitted that the informant being the first cousin of the petitioner no. 1 and having sold his land was very well aware of the ground realities and cannot take a stand that he was ignorant of what was the actual position. Further it was submitted that Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 229121 dt.03 08 2021 3 4 the petitioners have filed a supplementary affidavit in which a categorical stand has been taken on oath that the petitioners have not sold the same piece of land to two different persons. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are simple citizens being husband and wife and have no other criminal antecedent. It was submitted that had the allegation been correct the other person aggrieved would also have filed a case and most importantly neither any name of any person has been taken nor details of any document that the same piece of land was transferred to two persons has been either mentioned or brought on record. 9. Learned APP submitted that the petitioners are alleged to have cheated the informant and have got the same piece of land registered in favour of two persons. 10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks from today the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25 000 each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Buxar in Dumrao PS Case No. 127 of 2020 subject to the conditions laid down in Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 229121 dt.03 08 2021 4 4 Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and furtherthat one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioners andthat the petitioners shall cooperate with the Court and the police prosecution. Failure to cooperate shall lead to cancellation of their bail bonds. 11. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the petitioners to the notice of the Court concerned which shall take immediate action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the aforementioned terms. 12. The petition stands disposed of Anjani 

Summary: The petitioners were arrested under Section 406 IPC, “Punishment for criminal breach of trust”, section 420, “Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property”, section 467, “Forgery of valuable security, will”, section 468, “Forgery for purpose of cheating”, section 471 “Using as genuine a forged 1[document or electronic record]”, section 448, “Punishment for house-trespass “, section 506, “Punishment for criminal intimidation “, section 34 IPC, “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention”. This is in connection with Dumraon PS Case No. 127 of 2020 dated 15.04.2020. This judgment was given in the high court of Judicature at Patna by honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 3rd of August 2021 in the case of and Ramlal Goswami others versus the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No. 22918 of 2021, Mr. Manoj Kumar Represented as the advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Ram Sumiran represented the state of Bihar as the additional Public Prosecutor, the proceedings of the court were held via video conference. The following are the facts of the case, the informant is the cousin brother of petitioner no.1 and had bought land with the help of the petitioner but during this process, he was cheated in respect to the rates, and also the same piece of land was being sold by the petitioners to two different parties which is a violation of the law and the petitioners were accused and held in custody for the same. The counsel for the petitioners held that according to the FIR the informant sold the same land for a much higher price than the price he was paying for land, where he accused to petitioners of cheating him dishonestly, further the counsel held that this dispute is purely a civil case and not a criminal one. The counsel submitted as the informant was the first cousin of the petitioner no.1 there is a possibility he was well aware of the ground realities and was not ignorant of the same.  Regarding the statement that the land was sold to two different people, the petitioners have filed a supplementary affidavit where under oath they claim they have no sold the same land to two different people. The petitioners are husband and wife and have no other criminal antecedent. There is also a lack of evidence cause no other complaints were made so far and no documents regarding the same were brought on record. Hence the court is obliged to grant bail for the same. The additional Public prosecutor held that the petitioners have been clearly accused of cheating the informant and according to the investigation the same piece of land was registered for two people which is a violation of the law. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions the high court concluded that “the petitioners will be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty-five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, in connection to PS Case No. 127 of 2020, under the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C., 1973 (i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioners, and (ii) that the petitioners shall cooperate with the Court and the police/prosecution. Failure to cooperate shall lead to the cancellation of their bail bonds. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the petitioners, to the notice of the Court concerned, which shall take immediate action on the same after giving the opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.”