AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the parties.
Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with MGM P.S. case no. 49 of
2019 registered under Sections 420, 406, 407, 467, 468, 471, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the informant and the petitioners are the legal heirs of common ancestor and co- sharers of
the property and they have sold their property in jointness with the informant in favour of the co-accused persons by registered sale deed and in the
sale deed executed by the petitioners , it has been mentioned in the recital of the sale deed that the informant died as spinster even though the
informant is a married lady and is very much alive and has children out of her wedlock. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioners
are all false. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that after amicable partition between the parties, the property has fallen to
the share of the petitioners and inadvertently, in the recitals of the said deed, the name of the informant has been written with the prefix ‘late’
along with other deceased persons, though the informant is still alive and Title Suit No. 93 of 2018 is also pending between the complainant and the
petitioners in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jamshedpur and in the written statement, filed in the said Title Suit, the informant has admitted
that she got her share in the property and due to sudden death of the sons of the petitioner, mistake in the recitals in the sale deed could not noticed
and rectified immediately. It is next submitted that the father of the informant namely late Jyotirindranath Mahato sold his share of land during his life
time and the informant herself sold 1.15 acres of and of mouza Idalbera and suppressing the said facts, the informant has lodged this false case
against the petitioners. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the dispute between the parties is at best a civil dispute. It is
next submitted that the petitioners are ready to co-operate with the investigation of the case and they undertake not to go over or near the land in
respect of which, the sale deed has been executed by them during pendency of the case unless and until, any order in their favour is passed by the any
competent court of law, hence, the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Hence, in the
event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of four weeks from the date of this order, the petitioners shall be released on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
J.M., 1st class, Jamshedpur in connection with MGM P.S. case no. 49 of 2019 subject to the condition that the petitioners will not go over or near the
land in respect of which, the sale deed has been executed by them during pendency of the case unless and until, any order in their favour is passed by
the any competent court of law and will co-operate with the Investigation of the case and will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when
noticed by him and will submit mobile number and photocopy of Aadhaar card at the time of surrender in the court below with an undertaking not to
change mobile number during the pendency of the case along with the other conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.