Gurpreet Singh Chawla vs State Of Chhattisgarh

These 1st anticipatory bail applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been filed by the Applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.117/2023 registered at PS Mana Camp, District Raipur (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468/34 and 120-B IPC.

Prosecution case is that the Applicants have jointly entered into an agreement of sale on 29.07.2021 with the Complainant namely Vinish Kumar Chabra and his father namely Surendra Kumar Chabra for sale of land situated at village Temri, Raipur and they have also obtained earnest money of Rs.4 crores. It is alleged that though in the said agreement, it has been shown that the lands for which transaction was made was adjacent to the VIP road and are in one chuk (piece), but when the present Applicants sent demarcation report, it came to the notice of the Complainant party that the lands were not in one chuk (piece) and also not situated adjacent to the main road and thus they have been cheated, therefore, the aforesaid offence has been registered against the present Applicants.

Learned counsel for the Applicants submits that the Applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that the transaction was purely of civil nature and in the agreement, at clause No.5, it has been mentioned specifically that the consideration has to be paid only for the identified land after demarcation as per the agreed price but the Complainant party had given a criminal color to it by lodging the FIR for a civil dispute. He further submits that one of the co-accused namely Anil Kumar Kedia has already been granted interim protection vide order dated 02.05.2023 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C No.529/2023, therefore, considering all these aspects, the present Applicants may be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Per contra, learned Counsel for the State and Objector have opposed the said prayer. Shri Marhas, learned Counsel for the Objector submits that the Applicants have deliberately mentioned the fact that the land was adjacent to the main road but from the very inception, they were well aware that the land was not adjacent to the main road and also not in one chuk (piece) and this conduct of the Applicants itself shows that they intended to cheat the Complainant, the Complainant had already paid substantial amount of Rs.3 crores 49 lacs in cash, which has been admitted in the whatsapp messages also by the Applicants and the same has also been taken by the Complainant in his income tax account and the said fact was also duly acknowledged in the agreement itself, the map which was sent in the whatsapp was not a genuine one, therefore, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail.

Upon being asked, Shri Marhas submits that the map which was sent on 28.07.2021 is a nazari naksha prepared by the Applicants themselves.

Replying to the aforesaid submission, Shri Jha submits that the agreed rate was of Rs.1,206/- per square feet and total consideration as per the agreement entered into between the parties was more than Rs.15 crores. He further submits that the remaining balance has not been paid to the Complainant and to create pressure, the Complainant has taken the possession of the land and also raised boundary wall on it and as per the recent amendment in the Registration Act, if the possession has been handed over, then registration has to be done compulsorily and accordingly stamp duty has to be paid.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made, particularly considering that the parties have entered into agreement on 29.07.2021 and the Applicants have specifically stated in the agreement that they have purchased the lands at different times, therefore, the Complainant had an opportunity to obtain the sale deeds and further considering that at Clause-5, a condition was mentioned that consideration has to be paid only for the identified land after demarcation as per the agreed price, without further commenting anything on merits, this Court is of the opinion that present is a fit case where the Applicants deserve to be granted anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the Applicants, on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-

(a) they 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 fact to the Court.

(b) they shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and

(c) after filing of the charge sheet, the Applicants shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till the disposal of the trial.

(d) they shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future.

(e) they shall make themselves available for interrogation before the concerned police officer as and when required.

(f) they shall furnish all the details of movable and immovable property, bank accounts and their family members and shall not alienate the immovable property to the extent of Rs.4 crores and if they possess properties in excess of the Rs.4 crores, they are at liberty to transact with the excess value of the land without any written permission of the concerned Court below.