IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42205 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-460 Year-2023 Thana- CHAKIA District- East Champaran ====================================================== Abhay Thakur S/oLate Umakant Thakur R/o Village-Shekhi chakiya, P.S.- Chakiya, District-east Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Prakash Kumar S/o Bharat Kumar R/o Village-Chakia, Ward No. Baudhi Nagar near Middle School, P.S.- Chakiya, District-east Champaran 3. National Highway Authority of India Regional Officer, Patna, Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Surendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 6 28-01-2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State, learned counsel for the informant and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the NHAI Ms. Soni Srivastava. 2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Chakia P.S. Case No.460/2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, 504 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner on various dates, the N.H.A.I. was also impleaded as an opposite party in the instant case in view of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the C.O., as it was pleaded in the counter Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42205 of 2024(6) dt.28-01-2025 2/4 affidavit of the C.O. that the land in question was acquired by the N.H.A.I. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the N.H.A.I. submits that though the land was not acquired by the N.H.A.I but then was acquired by the Road Construction Department of the Government of India for construction of lateral road project in the year 1960-65 and since then the road is being used by the public. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that he had purchased 1 katha ¾ dhur of land pertaining to Khata No.253, Khesra No.876, Thana No.137, Tauzi No.1119 at Mauza- Karaniya, P.S. Chakia from four vendors vide Sale Deed No.2219 dated 13.02.2023 for a consideration of Rs.15 lakh, the petitioner was a witness on the sale deed. It is also submitted that petitioner is related to the vendors of the informant and the mother of the petitioner also had earlier sold some land of Khesra No.876 vide sale deed no. 2229 dated 13.02.2023 and vide Sale Deed No.2231 dated 13.02.2023. It is also submitted that when informant after purchasing the land from his vendors applied for mutation the same was rejected on the ground that the land in question is a government land and belongs to PWD. The learned counsel for Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42205 of 2024(6) dt.28-01-2025 3/4 the informant thus submits that this perhaps persuaded the Court to seek a counter affidavit from the C.O. and thereafter based on the counter affidavit of the C.O., the N.H.A.I. was also impleaded as opposite party. It is next submitted that it has been rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the N.H.A.I. that the land in question already stands acquired by the R.C.D., Government of India for construction of lateral road project, as such, the mutation application of the petitioner was rejected. The learned counsel for the informant also submits that though a plea has been taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was merely a witness on the sale deed, as such, he cannot be held accountable for the fraud committed by the vendors of the informant but then it is submitted that even mother of the petitioner had sold lands pertaining to the same khesra no.876 to other purchasers whose lands have also not been mutated, as such, petitioner was aware about the fraud being committed by his family members, hence it cannot be pleaded that petitioner was not aware of the nature of the property. It is next submitted that though a submission has been made on behalf of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the land in dispute is a khatiyani land of the petitioner but then the khatiyan has not been annexed with the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42205 of 2024(6) dt.28-01-2025 4/4 anticipatory bail application nor the name of the person in whose name the land stands recorded in the khatiyan is pleaded, which casts an aspersion on the case of the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is not in a position to rebut the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the N.H.A.I. 7. The Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 8. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is rejected. amit/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T