Hitesh Choubey S/o Ishwar Prasad Choubey vs State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. D.D. Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh

Narendra Kumar Vyas, J

CAV

This is the second bail application filed by the applicant under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of anticipatory bail, who has apprehension of being arrested in connection with Crime No. 592/2022, registered at Police Station- D.D. Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC. The first bail of the applicant was dismissed on merits on 10.08.2023 by this Court in MCRC(A) No. 206 of 2023.

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 12.08.2021 complainant- Manmohan Singh Gaba S/o Haripreet Singh Gaba, R/o Andheri West Mumbai (M.H.) lodged a complaint alleging that in the Agroha Grih Nirman Samiti, Raipur, a multi-storey building situated at Khasra No. 260/10 area admeasuring 7000 sq.ft. is purchased by Manmohan Singh Gaba from Shine City Dream Realtor O/o. 1/55 Fourth Floor R Square Complex Gomati Nagar, Lucknow (U.P.) through registered sale-deed on 22.03.2021 by paying sale consideration as per market rate to the tune of Rs. 3,63,98,000/- and has taken the possession over the said property but mutation proceeding could not be done due to engagement in business as well as on account of lock down due to Covid Pandemic. When the complainant initiated mutation proceeding, it was found that the said land has already been sold three times. After verification of the revenue record, it was found that the house was sold on the basis of forged documents by Mohammad Javed, aged about 36 years, S/o Abdul Khali resident of House No. 178 District- Banda (U.P.) on 19.05.2021 through registered sale deed to Rupesh Choubey brother of present applicant. Thereafter, Rupesh Choubey sold the property to Ashoka Biryani through proprietor- Krishnakant Ramavatar Tiwari, S/o Ramavatar Tiwari, R/o Maruti Homes Flat No. 601 Hirapur Road Raipur on 02.08.2021 in which Deputy Registrar S.K. Dehari has cooperated with them to commit the offence as mentioned in the FIR.

It is also case of the prosecution that it is found that Mohammad Javed, S/o Abdul Khalid, Rupesh Choubey, S/o Ishwar Prasad and the present applicant have fabricated the documents to grab the property of the complainant and thus, they have committed the offence as afore-stated. It is also case of the prosecution that Mohammad Javed, Rupesh Kumar Choubey and others have created forged and fabricated documents and purchased the property of the complainant for which registered sale-deed has already been executed in the name of complainant. It is also case of the prosecution that Shinegenex has executed an agreement with Hope Enterprises through Hitesh Choubey - present applicant on 19.10.2019 and thereafter the sale deed was executed with Ashoka Biryani through proprietor on 02.08.2021 by other co-accused Rupesh Choubey. Thus, the applicant along with other co-accused have hatched conspiracy, sold the property of the complainant. On the basis of the complaint and material on record, offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC has been registered against the applicant along with other co-accused in pursuance of Crime No. 592/2022 on 01.12.2022.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case as he has never been part of the transaction of the alleged land dispute. He would submit that the final report/ charge sheet itself is doubtful as there is contradiction with respect to the allegation. He would further submit that land bearing Khasra No. 260/10 mentioned in FIR and Final Report is not the subject of investigation, whereas the entire investigation and the actual transaction of said land in question is entered under Khasra No. 360/10 and various subdivisions of Khasra No. 360. He would further submit that original complaint is not placed on record by the complainant and the entire FIR and charge sheet is based on surmises and conjectures, amounting to suppression of facts.

He would further submit that power of attorney was not placed on records, which deprives the judicial scrutiny of the most valid document which is supposed to establish the locus on the complainant PW-1, therefore, the complainant with respect to the complaint is dubious, as such entire facts so investigated alleged to be against the applicant are false and there is no material to establish involvement of the applicant in the alleged crime. He would further submit that an agreement between Roopesh Choubey and Hitesh Choubey, prima-facie shows that the land which was handled by the applicant is khasra No. 362/1, 360/1, 2,3 Patwari Halka No. 104/56 and as to how it can be assumed that the said land is within the rights of the complainant.

He would further submit that the present applicant is neither purchaser of the suit property in question from the seller nor he has alienated the property in favour of Krishnakant Tiwari, he is only the person who has entered into an agreement to sell the property that too on behalf of M/s Hope Enterprises. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. Hence, it is prayed that this applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the anticipatory bail application submits that there is clear allegation against the applicant regarding commission of offence. He would further submit that notices dated 12.12.2022, 26.12.2022, 18.01.2023, 31.01.2023 were sent to the applicant with respect to provide original documents relating to land in question but no documents were submitted by him to substantiate what he is stating in the bail application regarding description of the property involved in the crime.

He would further submit that in response to notice dated 31.01.2023 he could not appear on 01.02.2023 but informed that he will appear on 14.02.2023 yet he did not appear on the said date, thereafter the applicant was declared as absconder on 15.01.2025 and 17.01.2025. It has also been contended that another notice dated 16.07.2025 was issued to him but he did not appear,therefore, Farari panchnama was prepared on 16.07.2025 and again a Farari panchnama was prepared on 09.05.2026. Thus, it is evident that the applicant does not intend to cooperate with the prosecution and not intend to place on record true and correct facts of the case before the prosecution agency.

Learned counsel for the State would further submit that the applicant along with two other accused namely Krishnakant Ramavtar Tiwari and Rupesh Choubey have filed WPCR No. 17 of 2023 before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court where they have prayed for quashing of the FIR No. 592/2022 dated 01.12.2022 registered at Police Station D.D.Nagar Raipur, which was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench on 13.12.2023 still the applicant has not cooperated with the prosecution which shows that he intends to escape from the investigation hence, it is prayed that the application for grant of anticipatory bail may be rejected.

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case diary with utmost circumspection.

From perusal of case diary, it is reflected that the complainant had purchased 7000 sq.ft. plot from Shine City Dream Realtors though registered sale-deed on 16.03.2021, but the same could not be mutated in his name because of Covid-19 pandemic and thereafter an agreement to sell the same property was executed between the applicant and Shinegenex and thereafter the sale- deed was executed in favour of Rupesh Choubey who is brother of the present applicant and immediately thereafter the said property was sold by Rupesh Choubey to Ashoka Biryani, thus, the property in question was sold on different dates to different persons on the basis of forged documents.

From perusal of case diary, it is quite vivid that there was an agreement to sell between Shinegenex Pvt. Ltd. and Hope Enterprises through Hitesh Choubey present applicant but in view of the affidavit of present applicant- Hitesh Choubey, the sale-deed has been executed between Shinegenex Pvt. Limited and Rupesh Choubey. The said property has been transferred on the strength of the affidavit filed by the applicant which is the foundation to commit offence of forgery for the purpose of cheating by fabricating false documents.

From perusal of the case diary, it is further reflected that the present applicant executed an agreement on 01.08.2019 on behalf of his firm Hope Enterprises to purchase the property bearing Khasra No. 362/1, part of 360/1, 2, 3 admeasuring 7000 sq.ft. situated at Tahsil & District- Raipur with Shinegenex Pvt. Ltd. but due to financial crisis, he was unable to execute the sale-deed and if the sale-deed is executed in favour of his brother- Rupesh Choubey, he has no objection and later on, Rupesh Choubey, brother of the present applicant has sold the property in question to one Krishnakant Tiwari by executing sale- deed dated 26.07.2021, as such prima-facie involvement of the applicant in hatching the conspiracy cannot be ruled out. Therefore, considering the parameter for grant of anticipatory bail application as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Ms. X Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another (Criminal Appeals No. 822-823 of 2023) decided on 17.03.2023, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

Further from the case diary, it is also quite vivid that Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has dismissed WPCR No. 17 of 2023 for quashing of the FIR in question on 13.12.2023 and applicant has declared as absconder on so many occasions by the prosecution as stated above still he is not cooperating with the prosecution agency. The case diary further indicates that the statements of all the accused have already been recorded but the statement of present applicant is yet to be recorded which clearly demonstrates that the applicant does not intend to cooperate with the prosecution. Even the earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected on 10.08.2023 by this Court on merits and the applicant is unable to demonstrate that there is change in the condition for grant of anticipatory bail. As such, in absence of change of circumstance and also considering the law that while considering the anticipatory bail this Court cannot minutely examine the evidence recorded before the trial Court, I am of the view that it is not a fit case for this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

Accordingly, the second bail application filed under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is also liable to be and is hereby dismissed. However, in the eventuality of surrender by the applicant before the trial Court it is directed that the concerned Trial Court shall decide the same expeditiously.

The observation made by this Court will not bearing any effect on the trial of the case. The learned trial court will decide the criminal trial in accordance with evidence, material placed on record without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court while deciding the present anticipatory bail application.

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/-