AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Complaint Case
No. 1003 of 2015 for the offence under sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
It appears that under order dated 23.08.2016, the matter was referrred to
JHALSA, Ranchi for mediation but the mediation has failed and the matter was to be
heard on merit and accordingly, the matter is being heard on merit.
The prosecution case, in short, is that the land as mentioned in para 1 of the
complaint petition over which a house was situated belonged to the complainant to
which she agreed to sale to the petitioners on consideration amount of Rs. 61 lakh. It is
further alleged that petitioner no. 1 advanced Rs. 20,11,000/- to the complainant and
an agreement was executed in between the parties with condition that petitioners shall
pay rest money till 27.12.2014 and shall get the sale deed executed. On 15.01.2015 the
petitioners paid Rs. 24,89,000/- only to the complainant and got a sale deed executed
for 8 decimal land stating that they shall soon pay rest Rs. 16 lakh and shall get sale
deed for the rest land. It is further alleged that the petitioners cheated the complainant
and took the key of the house for the cleaning of the house but neither they paid the
rest amount nor got the sale deed executed for the rest land and with intention to
cheat her took possession over the rest land area 2.25 decimal of the complainant and
not paying the rest consideration amount Rs. 16 lakh to the complainant.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the present case is purely
of civil nature and no criminal case is made out against the petitioners. There is no
case that the petitioners deceived the complainant rather there was dishonest concealment of fact by the complainant about the said 2.25 decimals of land which is a
public path. It is further submitted that in reply of legal notice, it was mentioned that
the complainant has received Rs. 68,11,000/- for the said land along with construction.
The complainant has received Rs. 20,11,000/- advance at the time of agreement and
further Rs. 48,00,000/- at the time of execution of sale deed bearing no. 650 dated
16.01.2015.
Learned A.P.P opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
Counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has appeared and filed counter-affidavit. Counsel for
the O.P. No. 2 has submitted that the petitioners had dishonest intention from the very
beginning and they have deliberately got executed the sale deed of 8 decimals of land
as they were not having any intention to get registry of balance 2.25 decimals of land
which is part and parcel of remaining land, So, the petitioners do not deserve privilege
of anticipatory bail.
It appears that under order dated 03.12.2016, the learned counsel for the
petitioners was directed to take instruction as to whether petitioners are ready to pay
the half of Rs. 16,00,000/- i.e Rs. 8,00,000/- to the O.P. No. 2, but today when the case
is called out, counsel for the petitioners replied in negative.
Taking all these facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant
anticipatory bail to the petitioner no. 1 namely, Mohan Singh . Accordingly, his prayer
for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.
Sofar as, the prayer for anticipatory of the petitioner no. 2 is concerned, I am
inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner no. 2. Accordingly, petitioner no. 2
namely, Bhupjit Kumar Rawani is directed to surrender in the Court below within four
weeks from the date of this order and in the event of his arrest or surrender the Court
below shall enlarge the above named petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the court of learned A.C.J.M, Bokaro in connection with Complaint Case
No. 1003 of 2015, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the
Cr.P.C