Ratnesh Jaiswal vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard.

2 This is an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.877/2020 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Bilaspur (CG) for the offence under Sections 420, 120-B of the IPC.

3 Prosecution case, in brief, is that in the year 2012, the applicant entered into an agreement with Isha Rani Mitra (since deceased) and her daughter Putul Mitra Dutta and purchased their land, but did not pay sale consideration to them and thereby, duped them by selling the same property, in a fraudulent manner, to other persons. Thereafter, Isha Rani Mitra lodged an FIR against the applicant.

4 While deciding the regular bail application of the applicant by this Court vide order dated 28.1.2021 passed in MCRC No.9348 of 2020, counsel for Isha Rani Mitra did not raise objection in releasing the applicant on bail and submitted that both the parties are ready to enter into a compromise and consequently, the bail was granted to the applicant with a direction to abide by the terms and conditions mentioned in the subject agreement. Thereafter, the parties entered into a compromise on 20.1.2021. According to the compromise, the applicant promised that an amount of Rs. 35 lakhs shall be paid to Putul Mitra Dutta and a diverted residential plot bearing Khasra No.138/10, area 900 sq. ft., situated at Gram Ameri shall also be transferred in her name without any sale consideration; the payment of Rs.35 lakhs shall be made in four installments within a stipulated time period; after compliance of the said agreement, the disputed plot/land, which was purchased by the applicant bearing Khasra No.316/34, shall be treated as free from all disputes; and lastly it was also agreed by the parties that no further criminal prosecution shall be continued.

5 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after entering into such compromise, Isha Rani Mitra died on 1.3.2021 and by that time, the applicant had already paid Rs.10 lakhs to her. He submits while allowing the regular bail application of the applicant, it was directed by this Court to abide by all the terms and conditions mentioned in the subject agreement. However, since after release of the applicant on bail, the applicant did not comply with the terms of the agreement, complainant Putul Mitra Dutta filed a petition for cancellation of bail vide CRMP No.604/2021 and during pendency of such petition, various opportunities were granted to the present applicant to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement, but he failed to do so and thereby, he violated the condition(s) of the bail. As a consequence, the bail granted to him vide order dated 28.1.2021 passed in in MCRC No.9348/2020 was cancelled vide order dated 27.2.2023 passed in the said CRMP. The applicant challenged the order dated 27.2.2023 before the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.3496/2023, which was dismissed, as withdrawn. The order reads as follows :

“After some hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present special leave petition.

In view of the statement made, the special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn.”

6 Learned counsel for the applicant would further draw attention of the Court towards the affidavit dated 17.4.2023 executed by the applicant, in which, it has been mentioned that he has already deposited Rs.25 lakhs by way of demand draft before the Registrar General of this High Court and he is ready and willing to transfer the subject land, a diverted residential plot bearing Khasra No.138/10, area 900 sq. ft, which is in his possession and sole ownership, on the directions of this Court by way of a registered sale-deed without any consideration. He would further submit that the applicant was not aware about the legal heirs of deceased Isha Rani Mitra and in such circumstances, he could not execute the said sale-deed and he has already complied with all the terms and conditions of the compromise entered into between the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant submits under these changed circumstances as also considering the affidavit executed by the applicant, he may be extended the benefit of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

7 Per contra, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for Objector - Putul Mitra Dutta oppose the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

8 However, learned counsel for Objector/Complainant Putul Mitra Dutta would submit that Putul Mitra Dutta is the only surviving legal heir of deceased – Isha Rani Mitra, which is not in dispute. He would submit that in CRMP No.604/2021, ample opportunities were granted to him to comply with the condition of the bail order, but he failed to do so and hence, his bail was cancelled. However, considering his past conduct, the complainant would not object to the prayer of bail made in the instant petition, subject to execution of sale-deed in her favour, as stated in the affidavit by him and also withdrawal of the amount deposited by the applicant with the Registrar General. However, learned counsel for the objector further submits that at this juncture, the present bail application filed for grant of anticipatory bail before this Court is not maintainable in view of the ratio laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Manish Jain Vs. Haryana State Pollution Control Board, (2020) 20 SCC 123.

9 In view of the objection raised by learned counsel for the complainant/objector, learned counsel for the applicant seeks 15 days time for transferring the land in the name of Putul Mitra Dutta by way of a registered sale-deed, as sworn by him in the affidavit filed in this petition.

10 The applicant is permitted to do so. However, it is directed that while executing the sale-deed, Puttul Mitra Dutta shall also state the fact on oath that she is the only legal heir of late Isha Rani Mitra. Further, the sale-deed shall be executed without payment of any further consideration.

11 In view of the foregoing discussion, it is directed that on furnishing a copy of the sale-deed supported with an affidavit and relevant documents filed by complainant Putul Mitra Dutta with regard to her legal heirship and also settling all her disputes with the present applicant, the Registrar General is directed to make payment of Rs.25 lakhs kept as deposit in the Registry of this High Court in her favour.

After completion of the entire exercise and after abiding by all the terms and conditions of the earlier bail order, if the applicant surrenders before the trial Court within a period of 20 days and move an application for regular bail, the concerned trial Court shall decide the aforesaid bail application, taking into consideration all such facts and specifically about the compliance of the aforesaid condition(s), preferably, on the same day itself.

With the aforesaid directions/observations, the petition is dismissed.