Dipali Das And Ors vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard the parties.

So far as defect no. 5 (e) is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the same, once the situation normalizes. As regards, defect no. 9 (i) is concerned, the same is ignored.

Petitioners are accused in connection with Birsanagar P.S. Case No. 2 of 2019 corresponding to G. R. No. 308 of 2020.

The father of the informant had purchased 3 kathas and half dhur of land through registered sale deed. It has been alleged that in the year 2010, one Indra Kishore Jha had induced the father of the informant to part with the sale-deed in the garb of getting the land mutated. However, he got the same mutated and on 10.05.2018 when the informant went to make certain constructions on the land, the accused persons had objected. It has further been alleged that two sale deeds were shown by Indra Kishore Jha, in which one sale-deed was executed by the father of the complainant in favour of the petitioner no. 1 and the other was executed by the petitioner no. 1 in favour of Indra Kishore Jha. The petitioner no. 2 appears to be the husband of the petitioner no. 1.

It appears that Indra Kishore Jha has also instituted a case regarding the same set of facts which was registered as Birsanagar P. S. Case No. 62 of 2019, in which the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail vide ABA No. 7182 of 2019. The same was perhaps a ploy used by Indra Kishore Jha to get away from the criminal prosecution. So far as the petitioners are concerned, it appears that the petitioner no. 1 had purchased the land on 15.12.2010 and had sold it to Indra Kishore Jha on the next day. It further appears that both the stamps papers were purchased on the same day and the photographs of petitioner no. 1 on both the sale deeds are different. The same indicates the complicity of both the petitioners in duping the informant of his land and in such circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.

Accordingly, this application stands rejected at this stage.