In Sayed Badi Asghar @ Syed Badie Asghar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Joymalya Bagchi passed a 2-page long order dated September 17, 2025, wherein, it concluded:"it is provided that if the petitioner appears before the concerned Magistrate within three weeks from today and submits bail bonds, to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate, he shall be released on bail." It has issued notice, returnable on November 12, 2025.
Before the Supreme Court, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that in respect of executing sale deed in favour of his wife by acting on a power of attorney executed by complainant’s husband when he was no more alive. The petitioner was not aware about the death of complainant’s husband. Moreover, the sale deed was executed in part performance of an earlier agreement between the parties.
In Sayed Badi Asghar @ Syed Badie Asghar & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2025), Justice Soni Shrivastava of Patna High Court had passed a 4-page long order dated June 18, 2025, wherein, she concluded:"by his fraudulent act, the petitioner no.1 has kept a widow running from pillar to post for her land and hence for such offence, the petitioner no.1 who has executed the sale deed does not deserve the benefit of anticipatory bail and the application is rejected with respect to petitioner no.1 Sayed Badi Asghar @ Syed Badie Asghar."
The petitioners including Sayed Badi Asghar @Syed Badie Asghar had approached the High Court apprehend their arrest in connection with Patna Complaint Case no. 4634C of 2022 registered under sections 420, 409, 418, 423, 467, 468, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution was that husband of the opposite party no.2/complainant Attorney in favour of petitioner no.1 Sayed Badi Asgar for selling his lands. It was alleged that despite the fact that husband of the opposite party no.2/complainant had died and yet based on the Power of Attorney, Sayed Badi Asghar @ Syed Badie Asghar, the petitioner no.1 executed sale deed in respect of land in question in favour of his wife Sheema Nezami (petitioner no.2) and one Salma Khatoon. It was submitted that husband of opposite party no.2/complainant had made a deed of agreement with petitioner no.1 for the sale of land and subsequently, a Power of Attorney had been executed in favour of petitioner no.1 for the sale of property. The petitioner no.1 had already paid the full consideration amount in the account of husband of opposite party no.2/complainant and her son. He also submitted on their behalf that the case was purely of civil nature and the opposite party/complainant has alternative civil remedies which are being pursued by the complainant by filing a title suit bearing Title Suit No. 191 of 2022. The petitioners have no criminal antecedent and undertake to co-operate in the case/trial.
The counsel for opposite party no.2/complainant submitted that a fraud has been committed by the petitioners as petitioner no. 1 was fraudulently executed sale deed with respect to the land in question in favour of his own wife who was petitioner no.2 and one Salma Khatoon even after having knowledge of the fact that husband of opposite party no.2/complainat who had executed a Power of Attorney in favor of petitioner no.1 had already died and hence, no action could be taken on the said Power of Attorney. It was submitted that deed of agreement which was mentioned in the petition was already cancelled.
Notably, the application for grant of anticipatory bail of the co-accused Yusuf Abdullah was already rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of the High Court vide order dated September 18, 2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 41877 of 2023.
Justice Shrivastava had observed: ''It appears that the instant case is kept pending for a long time on the ground that the petitioners would approach the opposite party no.2/complainant and get the matter settled.''
No comments:
Post a Comment