High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Sudhir Kumar @ Sanjeet Kumar vs State Of Bihar on 23 September, 2010

Patna High Court – Orders
Sudhir Kumar @ Sanjeet Kumar vs State Of Bihar on 23 September, 2010
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               Cr.Misc. No.24324 of 2010
                         SUDHIR KUMAR @ SANJEET KUMAR
                                           Versus
                                    STATE OF BIHAR
                                         -----------

3 23.09.2010. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has been made accused in a case under

sections 420,467,468,471/34 of the I.P.C

The informant stated that his father Late Ranjandhari

Sharma died in 2002 leaving behind two other sons, namely,

Kundan Sharma and Nagendra Sharma. Nagendra Sharma was

weak and of feeble mind besides being illiterate. One Shailendra

Sharma managed fabricated power of attorney from

informant’s brother, namely, Nagendra Sharma and this petitioner

obtained sale deed regarding landed property of informant and

others.

Petitioner submits that he is purchaser from one

Shailendra Sharma who was holding due power of attorney from

Nagendra Sharma on adequate consideration. He submits that the

allegation that he is in league with Shailendra Sharma is false. He

further submits that a title suit bearing No. 105/2010 dated

26.4.2010 for cancellation of fabricated power of attorney has

already been filed by the informant in the Civil Court. He also

submits that dispute, if any, would be of a civil nature.

Sri P.N. Shahi, learned counsel appearing for the

informant opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that this

petitioner who managed grant of power of attorney from
2

Naagendra Sharma in favour of his own man Shailendra Sharma.

He further submits that on basis of fake power of attorney

Shailendra Sharma even sold land which did not belong to

Nagendera Sharma in favour of petitioner. In fact, no

consideration money was paid by the petitioner and entire

transaction was sham.

Both the informant and State counsel submit that the

supervising officer has too opined that petitioner has been

indulging in such nefarious activities in the past. However, they

have not been able to point out any regular case instituted against

him. State counsel submits that the Supervising officer has

observed that the petitioner has been found to have indulged in

such activities in the past as well.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, let the

petitioner as above be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of

Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount

each, one of which would be in form of cash surety, to the

satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Naubatpur

Police Station case no. 163 of 2010.

Petitioner would not absent physically for more than

two consecutive dates at a stretch, till three witnesses are

examined in trial, otherwise his bail bond would be cancelled and

he would be taken into custody.

Shashi.                              (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)