Pranesh Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sandip Kumar Burnwal, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. A. K.

Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

The petitioner is an accused in connection with Complaint Case No. 3574 of 2018.

The prosecution story reveals that the informant was approached by the petitioner for selling the land including the house appertaining to Khata No.

22, Plot No. 162/163 at Mouza Madhukam, P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, District Ranchi comprising an area of 7 Katthas. The informant had initially given an

amount of Rs. 25 lacs. Till February 2018, the sale deed was not executed in favour of the informant. On enquiry, the informant could come to know

that the accused had also taken Rs. 67 lacs from one Samir Sao and when the accused was confronted, a promissory note was given on 04.04.2018

that Rs. 67 lacs shall be returned to Samir Sao within a period of 6 months. The petitioner was approached for return of Rs. 45 lacs, but neither was it

returned nor the landed property transferred. Based on the aforesaid allegations Complaint Case No. 3574 of 2018 was instituted and after conducting

an inquiry, cognizance was taken on 04.02.2010 for the offences under Sections 406/420 of I.P.C.

It has been stated by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had arranged customers for the complainant’s land situated at

Bindgaon, Khunti and about 20 acres of land were sold through the petitioner. It has further been stated that the petitioner had also lodged a case

against the complainant on 03.10.2018 on the allegation that the petitioner was forced to sign on several documents at gun point which was registered

as Lalpur P. S. Case No. 380 of 2018. Learned senior counsel further submits that several cases have been instituted by the complainant against the

petitioner. He has stated that there is no question of refunding the amount back to Samir Sao as neither he was a signatory nor was he a beneficiary.

Mr. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel has referred to the agreement between the petitioner and the complainant dated 18.04.2016 which has been

brought on record through a reply to the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner and has stated that it is a manipulated document. It has further been

stated that the institution of the case by the petitioner substantiates the aforesaid facts. It has been argued that the petitioner has himself stated that

the entire money will be returned back within six months, but the complainant has filed the case prior to expiry of six months. It has been concluded by

stating that the complainant has got a civil remedy.

Mr. A. K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has stated that the complaint petition clearly reveals an act of fraud as well as

criminal breach of trust on the part of the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner has concealed the fact that Rs. 60 lacs was taken from Samir

Sao and such concealment and deception on the part of the petitioner clearly makes out a case under Section 406 and 420 I.P.C. It has also been

stated that the petitioner is involved in similar cases and therefore, the present application should be rejected.

There appears to be some dispute with respect to the agreement which was purportedly entered into, as learned senior counsel for the petitioner has

vehemently submitted that the same is a manipulated document and there are several discrepancies and over-writing on the same. The dispute

appears to be with respect to the sale and purchase of a property which according to the complainant became clouded in view of the fact that the

petitioner had also taken a huge amount from Samir Sao. The petitioner appears to be in custody since 09.05.2019.

Regard being had to the entire facets of the case coupled with the period of custody undergone by the petitioner, he is directed to be released on bail

on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st

class, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No. 3574 of 2018.