High Court

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the first information report was lodged after 18 years of the alleged incident. He added that the applicant is a bonafide purchaser and he purchased the land in question from one Ramdei wife of Prabhu and the land in question is also mutated in his favour. He added that the complainant claiming him to be the grand son of Prabhu, has lodged the first information report in the year 2023 though, he became major in year 2016 and even then the first information report is delayed by 7 years. Further submission is that it is improbable story that the applicant had no knowledge that the land in question is not in the name of his father or the grand-father and the delay has not been properly explained. He also submits that the land in the question was recorded in the revenue records at the time when the registered sale deed was got executed and therefore, no cheat & fraud has been committed. He next added that there is no ample evidence against the applicant that he has ever committed cheat & fraud and he himself has been victimized. Next submission is that the applicant has cooperated with the investigating officer and chargesheet has been filed and therefore, no further custodial interrogation is required in this matter. He further submits that the applicant undertakes that he will always cooperate with the trial proceeding. Further, if the investigation is required, he will cooperate with the same. He next submits that even after cooperation in the investigation proceedings, the police is adamant to arrest him, therefore, submission is that he may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the evidence is apparent against the applicant as he while showing the vendor as Ramdei, wife of Jodha had purchased another land and within a period thirty days, he purchased the land of grandfather of complainant while showing Ramdei as wife of Prabhu. He also submitted that the fabrication in the record is done which is apparent from the documentary report. Adding his arguments, he submits that the complainant was minor at the time of execution of Registered sale deed and it is unfortunate that his father was also the part of the crime though, later on, he was enlarged on regular bail. Further submission is that the land of a minor cannot be transferred without the procedure prescribed under the law and it is apparent that the applicant has committed cheat & fraud and as such, he is not entitled for any relief as the nature of the offence is very serious. Learned counsel appearing for the State has also supported the version of counsel for the complainant and submits that after thorough investigation it was found that the applicant is involved in committing the offence and chargesheet has been filed in this matter though, he has failed to demonstrate that the applicant has ever absconded from the investigation proceedings. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the incident in question is 16 years ago and the present applicant is a purchaser of land in question and it is not a case that the land in question was not recorded in the name of the vendor. This Court has noticed the fact that the grandson has lodged the first information report against his father who is also one of the witness in the sale deed in question and his father has been enlarged on regular bail. Further, the applicant has cooperated in the investigation proceedings thus, chargesheet has been filed as such, at this stage there seems to be no possibility that he would tamper the evidences or threaten the witnesses; prima facie, the custodial interrogation is not required in the matter and as per the argument of counsel for the applicant, there is acute apprehension of his arrest coupled with the fact that there is no previous criminal history of the applicant and he has undertaken that he will cooperate with the trial proceedings. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the instant regular anticipatory bail is hereby allowed while granting bail to the applicant namely, Sukhdev till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions :- (i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission court' (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this protection. Order Date :- 12.2.2025 Mayank

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the first information report was lodged after 18 years of the alleged incident. He added that the applicant is a bonafide purchaser and he purchased the land in question from one Ramdei wife of Prabhu and the land in question is also mutated in his favour. He added that the complainant claiming him to be the grand son of Prabhu, has lodged the first information report in the year 2023 though, he became major in year 2016 and even then the first information report is delayed by 7 years. Further submission is that it is improbable story that the applicant had no knowledge that the land in question is not in the name of his father or the grand-father and the delay has not been properly explained. He also submits that the land in the question was recorded in the revenue records at the time when the registered sale deed was got executed and therefore, no cheat & fraud has been committed. He next added that there is no ample evidence against the applicant that he has ever committed cheat & fraud and he himself has been victimized. Next submission is that the applicant has cooperated with the investigating officer and chargesheet has been filed and therefore, no further custodial interrogation is required in this matter. He further submits that the applicant undertakes that he will always cooperate with the trial proceeding. Further, if the investigation is required, he will cooperate with the same. He next submits that even after cooperation in the investigation proceedings, the police is adamant to arrest him, therefore, submission is that he may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the evidence is apparent against the applicant as he while showing the vendor as Ramdei, wife of Jodha had purchased another land and within a period thirty days, he purchased the land of grandfather of complainant while showing Ramdei as wife of Prabhu. He also submitted that the fabrication in the record is done which is apparent from the documentary report. Adding his arguments, he submits that the complainant was minor at the time of execution of Registered sale deed and it is unfortunate that his father was also the part of the crime though, later on, he was enlarged on regular bail. Further submission is that the land of a minor cannot be transferred without the procedure prescribed under the law and it is apparent that the applicant has committed cheat & fraud and as such, he is not entitled for any relief as the nature of the offence is very serious. Learned counsel appearing for the State has also supported the version of counsel for the complainant and submits that after thorough investigation it was found that the applicant is involved in committing the offence and chargesheet has been filed in this matter though, he has failed to demonstrate that the applicant has ever absconded from the investigation proceedings. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the incident in question is 16 years ago and the present applicant is a purchaser of land in question and it is not a case that the land in question was not recorded in the name of the vendor. This Court has noticed the fact that the grandson has lodged the first information report against his father who is also one of the witness in the sale deed in question and his father has been enlarged on regular bail. Further, the applicant has cooperated in the investigation proceedings thus, chargesheet has been filed as such, at this stage there seems to be no possibility that he would tamper the evidences or threaten the witnesses; prima facie, the custodial interrogation is not required in the matter and as per the argument of counsel for the applicant, there is acute apprehension of his arrest coupled with the fact that there is no previous criminal history of the applicant and he has undertaken that he will cooperate with the trial proceedings. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the instant regular anticipatory bail is hereby allowed while granting bail to the applicant namely, Sukhdev till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions :- (i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission court' (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this protection. Order Date :- 12.2.2025 Mayank