Blog

The petitioner being a deed writer was alleged to have committed a fraudulent deal and helped the person in disguise to act as an informant. The Court under the light of all facts and circumstances denied the bail. The Hon’ble High Court of Patna before Justice Mr. Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the matter Kailash Jha v. The State of Bihar[Criminal Miscellaneous No. 36550 of 2020].

The facts of the case were that the petitioner was apprehended arrest in connection with a Case, instituted under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that the petitioner was a party to a fraudulent sale deed. He by false presentation sold the land in the name of the informant and falsely represented someone else as the informant in the deed.

The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was just a deed writer in the case and he has no connection with the false deed that took place. He was just privy to the factual position and was only the scribe. Also, the petitioner had no other criminal antecedent.

The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted and pointed out that the petitioner being a deed writer was a key player in the deed and the entire procedure for the registration and performance of the sale deed was routed through him.

The Learned Counsel for the Informant contended that the petitioner plays the role of both Katib and Karamchari in the registered and concerned office of Sub registry and had full information regarding the case. He was fully aware of the fact that what are the actual name and details of the person in disguise. It was the role of Katib that guides the parties about the modalities, including the requirement of identity proof of the person appearing before the Sub Registrar to execute the deed of transfer. Thus, it was submitted that in the entire episode of the fraud committed, the petitioner had a crucial role.

The Hon’ble High Court of Patna held,” Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.” The petition was dismissed on the said terms and the bail was denied.

Click Here To Read The Judgment

Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish