SHAILENDRA VADHERA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.138/2016, registered at Police Station â€" City Kotwali, Jagdalpur, Bastar (CG), for the offence

punishable under Section 420 of the IPC, the applicant has filed this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of

anticipatory bail.

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant made a false statement before the Revenue Authority after the death of his father and got the

entire property registered in his name claiming to be the exclusive owner of the property and thereby committed the aforesaid offence.

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that there is a dispute between the applicant and his sisters. The written complaint has

been made by Shalini Pal Jouhar, sister of the applicant, stating that property got transferred in the name of applicant through mutation proceedings by

Revenue authority after the death of Shri Dwarka Prasad Vadhera on 08-07-2009. Three civil suits filed by the complainants against the applicant are

pending and in all cases, the relief of declaration of title, permanent injunction and possession has been claimed by them and the application for

temporary injunction has been rejected by order dated 15-05-2015 against which the complainants preferred an appeal bearing Misc. Appeal

No.1/2015 which was also dismissed vide order dated 18-09-2017. Owing to the aforesaid dispute between the parties, an application has been filed by

one of the sisters namely, Shubra Prakash. The criminal complaint has been rejected on 02-09-2014 and now the FIR has been lodged on 09-05-2016

at the behest of another sister namely Shalini Pal Jouhar, as such, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

On the other hand, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State while opposing the bail application would submit that the appli-cant has

grabbed the entire property by making aforesaid declaration before the Revenue Authority and transferred the property to third person, therefore, it is

not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, fur-ther taking into consideration the nature and gravity of offence, it is not in

dispute that the aforesaid declaration suits have been filed and possession has been claimed and the application of temporary injunc- tion has been

rejected that has been affirmed in appeal, the criminal complaint which has already been filed by one of the sisters has been dismissed, FIR was

lodged on 09-05-2016 and in particular pendency of civil suit between the parties, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail in

favour of the applicant.

Accordingly, this application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid offence, he shall

be released on bail by the officer arresting him on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the

satisfaction of the concerned Investigating/ Arresting Officer. The applicant shall also abide by the following con-ditions:-

(i) that he shall make himself available for interrogation be-fore the concerned Arresting/Investigating Officer as and when required;

(ii) that he shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to the person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade

him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) that he shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and

(iv) that he shall also appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.