IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35949 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-97 Year-2024 Thana- BARARI District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Sujeet Kumar Singh S/O Manvendra Narayan Kumar Resident of Gandhi Nagar, P.S.- K. Hatt, District- Purnea. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar Bihar 2. Manoranjan Prasad Singh S/o fuleshwar prasad singh R/o rajendra Colony Maniyari, P S Naugachhiya Dist Bhagalpur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajeev Ranjan No. Ii For the State : Mr.Ahmad Ali For the Informant : Mr.Ranjan Kr. Jha Mr.Rana Pratap Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 4 19-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Barari P.S. Case No. 97 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2)/318(4)/3(5) of BNS. 3. According to the allegation, after showing forged papers, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the informant for sale of the land, for which the informant paid Rs. 35 lakhs. Neither the money was returned nor the sale deed was executed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35949 of 2025(4) dt.19-11-2025 2/2 that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated. The land did not belong to the petitioner rather, the land belonged to another person. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the informant and the learned APP for the State have opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that there is a written agreement between the petitioner and the informant. He has also submitted that the petitioner is involved in similar occurrence and the District Magistrate has removed him from the post of Additional Public Prosecutor vide order dated 10.05.2016, which is Annexure-R1. 6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, in my view, the petitioner doesn’t deserve the privileges for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected. kundan/- (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) U T