1. Ravindra Pandey @ Ravindranath Pandey 2. Minhaz Ali 3. Sanjay Sharma @ Sanjay v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.6518 of 2023 ------ 1. Ravindra Pandey @ Ravindranath Pandey 2. Minhaz Ali 3. Sanjay Sharma @ Sanjay Singh 4. Jitendra Giri @ Jitu Giri 5. Jageshwar Yadav .... Versus .... …. Petitioners 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Narayan Barnwal .... .... .... Opposite Parties ------ CORAM
Legal Reasoning
: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha Addl.P.P : Mr. Avilash Kumar, Advocate ------ Order No.04 Dated- 16/09/2023 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.777 of 2021 arising out of Telaiya P.S. Case No.304 of 2018 instituted under Sections 448, 467, 468, 471, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners have committed cheating and forgery. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is the case of the informant/complainant that Dewki Kumhar who claims to be one of the descendants of Khedni Devi- the recorded tenant has fraudulently got the name of Khedni Devi recorded in the Record of Rights and subsequently in exercise of their power, the sale deed has been executed by the petitioners in favour of different purchasers. It is next submitted that petitioner Nos.1 and 4 are witnesses of different sale-deeds and petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 5 were instrumental in preparation of forged documents and transaction of sell of land. It is further submitted that police after investigation of the case submitted Final Form mentioning that the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute and did not send up the petitioners for trial. Thereafter, the complainant-opposite party no.2 filed a protest petition and upon the same, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 504, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It is next submitted that the allegation of forgery is vague and omnibus in nature. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Chitto Kumhar acquired 4.15 acres of land of Khata No.1, Plot No. 1246 of Mouza –Moriawan from ex-landlord through Hukumnama and paid Malguzari to the ex-landlord and remained in possession of the land and later on vide registered sale deed no. 1670 dated 07.09.1931, the settlee Chitto Kumhar sold and transferred 2.00 acres out of the said 4.15 acres of the settled land to his wife –Khedani Kumhain and put her in possession and after that Khedani Kumhain remained in possession and possessed the land for several years. After vesting of Zamindari, her name was entered in Register –II of Anchal Koderma and she was paying Malgujari and obtaining receipt. The eldest son of Khedani namely Rupchand Kumhar sold and transferred 69 decimals of land to Smt. Loko Devi and Loko Devi sold the land to Leelawati Devi and after the death of Leelawati Devi and her husband, the complainant Narayna Barnwal being one of the legal heirs of the portion of the said land but the said land has been acquisitioned by the State Government for construction of Koderma- Hazaribagh Rail Line and the complainant and his brother received huge amount of compensation from the Railways. It is submitted that Rupchand Kumhar left village – Moriawan and settled in Rohaniatand where he ultimately died and his brother Mahadeo Kumhar was in possession of 1.00 acres of land of his share which he inherited from his mother Khedani Kumhain. Mahadeo Kumhar sold and transferred 13 decimals of land to Rameshwar Giri, Sarju Giri, Raghu Giri and Dasrath Giri and put the vendees in possession and the remaining land was possessed by him. Due to legal necessity, his son Deoki and daughter-in-law Shanti Devi executed power of attorney in favour of the petitioners to sale one acre out of two acres of land of plot no. 1246. It is next submitted that no forgery has been committed by the petitioners and the dispute between the parties is at best a civil dispute and in fact the complainant and his brothers have played fraud with the trial court in Title Suit No. 17 of 2008 and Title Suit No. 42 of 1998 and obtained a decree which is non-est in the eye of law. It is then submitted that there is no allegation of any impersonation by the executants of any of the instruments of power of attorney or sale deed. It is also submitted that the co-accused, with similar allegations, have already been given the privileges of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 14.09.2023 passed in A.B.A. No.6698 of 2023. It is lastly submitted that the petitioners undertake to co-operate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that on the principle of parity, the petitioners be also given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State being assisted by the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners. Considering the submissions of learned counsels and the facts and circumstances stated above, I am inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to surrender in the Court below within six weeks from today and in the event of their arrest or surrendering, they will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Koderma in connection with Complaint Case No.777 of 2021 arising out of Telaiya P.S. Case No.304 of 2018 with the condition that they will co-operate with the trial of the case and further conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Animesh/ (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)