Nafr High Court
Case Details
2025:CGHC:16440 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 257 of 2025 Order Reserved on 25.03.2025 Order delivered on 08.04.2025 Juned Siddiqui S/o Abdul Rahim Siddiqui Aged About 30 Years R/o Near Chhattisgarh College, Bairan Bazar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Applicant State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer Saraswati Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. AG For Respondent/Objector : Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas CAV Order 1. This is the second anticipatory bail filed by the applicant under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, who has apprehension of being arrested in connection with Crime No. 11/2023, registered at Police Station– Saraswati Nagar, Raipur SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.04.09 10:29:59 +0530 District Raipur (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 420,467,468, 471, 120-B/34 of the IPC. First bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh bail application, if exigency so arises, in MCRCA No. 649 of 2023 on 22.08.2023. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that a complaint was filed by complainant Mohammad Israr alleging that the applicant on the basis of forged power of attorney attempted to sell the ancestral property of deceased Azimuddin, Shahid Munir Nafeesuddin and their legal representatives. The applicant with other co-accused got mutated the name of Sultana Begum and Faizal Shahid in the revenue records and executed sale deed of property situated at PH No. 107, Revenue Circle Raipur, Sheet No. 06, plot No. 7/1, khasra No. 213/1 total area 1500 Sq. foot on 16.06.2014. During investigation, material has been collected which reflects that the applicant was involved in earning illegal means with other co- accused by impersonating other person as Sahid Munir and sold the ancestral property of the victims. On investigation, offence under Sections 420,120-B,467, 468, 471 of the IPC was registered against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case and he was not involved in the offence registered against him. He would further submit that after recording the name of the Sultana Begam in place of Shahid Munir they have executed a sale deed in favour of Mayank Agrawal in respect of khasra No. 154/6 area 0.533 hectare which was earlier recorded in the name of Shahid Munir. He would further submit that co-accused persons were granted bail by this Court in MCRCA Nos. 235/2023, 1154 of 2024 on 05.04.2023, 14.10.2024 and in MCRCA No. 1311 of 2024 on 10.02.2025, therefore, prays for extending the benefit of Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to the applicant on parity. 4. Learned Sr. counsel for the objector would submit that there was active participation of the applicant in preparing forged power of attorney and to execute the sale deed to different person for its own purpose and did not give the share to other shareholders of the property. He would further submit that the application for anticipatory bail filed by the applicant is blatant process of law, however, after examination of the facts of the case, it is clear that the applicant was involved in hatching conspiracy to grab valuable property belonging to family members of complainant. He would further submit that the applicant along with co-accused are the member of organized crime involved in grabbing the land despite having no right over the property. The applicant is habitual offender having multiple FIRs’ were registered at various Police Stations across the State. He would further submit that after obtaining interim protection from Hon’ble Division Bench of this High Court the applicant with other co-accused executed registered sale deed in favour of Mayank Agrawal on 25.07.2023. He would further submit that market value of the property was approximately Rs. 20 crores whereas the applicant along with co- accused through power of attorney transferred the property for a meager amount of Rs. 2,16,24,500/- causing huge loss to the actual co-owner of the property. He would further submit that because of the criminal act of the applicant, FIR bearing No. 43 of 2020 was registered against the family member of Shahid Munir alleging that they had executed forged power of attorney. However, the trial Court exonerated the objector from the said charges. He would further submit that the applicant along with co- accused have manipulated the government records by misleading the authorities though he had no legal right or title over the property. He would further submit that the applicant is not relative of the actual owner of the land and had played an active role in the alleged crime and he is also involved in grabbing land of poor people and various criminal cases have already been pending in the different districts of the State, therefore, his role should be different from other co-accused who have already been granted bail by this Court and would pray for rejection of the anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and would submit that the applicant has played an active role in making forged power of attorney for earning illegal means and he alongwith co- accused have sold the land, evaded the tax to the Government, 6. 7. therefore, prays for rejection of the bail application. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it is expedient for this Court to consider the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is similarly situated person to other co-accused or not and alleged offence committed by the applicant is of civil nature or criminal nature to ascertain parity as claimed by the applicant. Order dated 10.02.2025 passed in MCRCA No. 1311 of 2024 passed by this Court would reveal that there was dispute with regard to the factum whether the co-accused Sultana Began is divorced lady or not and whether the divorce has been taken place in accordance with law or not which entitled or disentitled the co-accused Sultana Begam to consider for grant of bail and accordingly this Court has recorded a finding that dispute between them was of civil nature, as such anticipatory bail was granted to the co-accused. In the present case, the accused has no relationship with the complainant. To ascertain relationship between the applicant and complainant, this Court has directed the applicant to file an afÏdavit wherein he has mentioned that co-accused Sultana Begam is his aunt and has faith in him which clearly establishes that he has no relationship with complainant’s family, as such his case is different from co-accused, therefore, he cannot claim parity with co-accused who have been granted bail by this Court. 8. From perusal of the case diary, considering the role played by the applicant and his involvement in crime in question, this Court is of the view that the applicant is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. It is pertinent to mention here that earlier anticipatory bail was rejected by this Court on 23.08.2023 since than the applicant is absconding, which gives additional ground for rejecting anticipatory of the applicant, as such the bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh