Shivam Das Mahant vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Goutam Bhaduri, J

This application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant apprehending his arrest in connection with

Crime No.309/2017 registered at Police Station Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420/34 of the I.P.C.

As per the prosecution case, a written report was made by one Premsagar Patel to the Superintendent of Police, Bemetara on 01.12.2016 that the

applicant along with the other co-accused namely; Kok Singh Patel of Village Machuara, Hemant of village Gadapur and Krishna Kant Gurjar of

village Gadamod has agreed to sale a land of 69 Acres at village Basnipatharra and on different dates an amount of Rs.31 Lakhs was received and

other gold ornaments were also received. Subsequently, it was revealed that the land belongs to one K.M.J. Developers and proposed sellers were not

the owners. Further report was made that the lady members of the complainant had given 100 Tolas gold ornament on the assurance that amount

would be raised and sale would be executed. Thereby the applicant along with the other has committed the fraud.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that no agreement existed in between the applicant and the complainant. He would further submit

that it is completely improbable that such a huge amount would be paid. He would further submit that the applicant and the other co-accused were

working on behalf of the KMJ Developers and the land was initially agreed to be sold to the other purchasers and eventually it was sold in favour of

one Daljeet Singh and Kishore Kumar. He would further submit that the applicant is ready and willing to pay the amount of Rs.31 Lakhs, which was

received during the transaction and the nature of transaction is civil, therefore, no custodial interrogation would be required and the applicant may be

given benefit of anticipatory bail.

Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

I have perused the report of the complainant. It shows that the applicant along with the other co-accused by showing the land of others received the

amount at different point of time and one of the co-accused was the relative, as such initially no agreement was entered in between the parties. The

case-diary also shows that similar type of incident has been done at Hoshangabad District and the other co-accused are still at large. Considering the

way the offence is committed, it is not a case where the benefit of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. can be granted. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail

application is dismissed.