Sunil and others vs State of M. P.

This is the first application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed by petitioners-Sunil, Manilal and Anil in Crime No.591/2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station - Station Road, Ratlam District-Ratlam.

It is the case of the prosecution that land bearing Survey No.24/1 belongs to complainant - Irfan, while land bearing Survey No.24/6 belongs to Rawab Bai. Rawab Bai sold her land through attorney - Sakina to Santosh by a registered sale deed. Allegation of the complainant is that while executing this sale deed, Rawab Bai and Sakina annexed a old trace map of the land, which does not show the Bataankan or partition of the land. The complainant apprehended that this was done intentionally to grab his land bearing suvey number 24/1, which is more valuable than the land of Rawabbai by replacing the same by survey number 24/6, which has less value. Even when the complainant was running a Dhaba (motel) on his land bearing survey number 24/1, the accused persons tried to dispossess him forcibly. Alleging that seller Rawab Bai and purchaser Santosh conspired against him to grab his land, the complainant approached the police and filed a written complaint. During investigation, the police recorded the statement of Sakina and Rawab Bai under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872. They both revealed that all this mess was done by the present petitioners, therefore, they are being impleaded in the case and the police wanted to arrest them.

It is argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are neither concerned with the sale-purchase of the land bearing Survey No.24/6 of Rawabbai nor they are concerned with the land of the complainant bearing Survey No.24/1. They have nothing to do with both the parties. They have not been named in the FIR. There is nothing on record to connect them with the crime, except the memorandum statement of the seller of land bearing Survey No.24/6 Rawab Bai and Sakina recorded under Section 27 of Evidence Act, 1872.

Shri Jain pointed out that that much prior to filing of the complaint with the police, a civil suit was filed by the complainant against purchaser of the land bearing Survey No.24/6, Santosh. In that civil suit also, no allegation was ever made against the petitioners. Respondent - Santosh had filed an application in that civil suit under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for demarcation of the land purchased by him and this application was allowed in July, 2019. Till this time, no allegation was made by the complainant against the petitioners. After the death of Santosh, on 05.02.2020 an application was filed by the complainant making allegations against the petitioners and to add Section 467, 468, 471 IPC. Here the petitioners were first introduced in the crime and Ss. 467, 468, 471 IPC were added to the case, which was earlier registered under Section 420 IPC, but still no documents allegedly forged or fabricated by the petitioners could be produced or pointed out by the complainant.

Shri Jain submits that this is a dispute of demarcation, location and boundaries of their respective lands between seller, purchaser and the complainant. The petitioners are not concerned with their dispute in any manner whatsoever. They are being falsely implicated in the case and, therefore, they be granted bail.

It is further averred that the main accused Rawab Bai and Sakina were granted bail by the trial Court. They were again granted bail even after addition and enhancement of the charges under Section 467,468,471 IPC. The case of the petitioners is on better footing. Therefore, they are also entitled for the same relief.

The learned Counsel for the objector started his submission with a lot of emphasis that despite availability of the latest trace map showing demarcation of the distinct land bearing survey number 24/1 and 24/6, a very old map of the year 1984 was annexed with the sale deed. In this map, parts of the land bearing survey number 24/1 and 24/6 had not been shown. This fact alone is sufficient to show the malafide intention of the petitioners that since the beginning, they conspired to grab the more valuable land of the complainant under the guise of purchase the land of Rawab Bai.

The learned counsel further pointed out several documents relating to the facts of the case. Few photographs to show his own land and the land of Rawab Bai have been demonstrated by him. He also referred memorandum statements of Rawab Bai and Sakina. In reply to the query raised by the Court to show any document, which is forged or fabricated by the petitioners, the learned Counsel for the objector referred photocopy of a Bhu Adhikar Pustika filed with the objection at page No. 66 of the compilation, wherein it is mentioned at the top of the first page "Prarthi Kramank 1, 2 va 3 Roopvarsha, Sunil Gandhi." It is argued that this shows that the petitioners are very well interested in the land and have obtained the revenue documents of the same, but there is no evidence as to who has written these words or that the this endorsement on the Bhuadhikar Pustika, was made by or on the instigation of the petitioners.

Replying the argument of the petitioners that they are not named in the FIR, learned Counsel for the objector referred a complaint allegedly submitted before Superintendent of Police, Ratlam on 05.04.2019 i.e. prior to filing of the civil suit or the FIR. In this complaint, the names of the petitioners are very well mentioned, but in reply to the query raised by this Court to the Panel Lawyer, it is admitted that no such complaint is available in the case-diary or that the case-diary does not reveal that any action was ever taken on this complaint. Copy of the inward book, having entry of this complaint, is also not produced by the objector. Much emphasis is given by the learned counsel for the objector on the facts of the case and it is repeatedly argued that the charges levelled against the petitioners are very serious, therefore, they be not granted bail.

In support of his objection, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court and High Courts rendered in the case of Maruti Nivrutti Navale Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in (2012) 9 SCC 235, State of A.P. Vs. Bimal Krishna Kundu and another reported in (1997) 8 SCC 104, The State of Maharashtra Vs. Esarar Ahmedkha and Others, Cr.A. No.5620 of 2012, decided on 6. 09.2013 and Subhash Chanana Vs. State reported in 1994 Cri. L. J. 2370.

Learned Panel Lawyer representing the State has supported the contentions submitted by the learned Counsel for the objector.

I have heard the parties at length and have gone through the documents referred by both the parties as well as available in the case-diary.

After going through the evidence available on record to fortify the allegation against the petitioners, in my considered opinion, the case for granting anticipatory bail is made out, therefore, without commenting on merits of the case, the petition is allowed.

Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of the petitioners' arrest or surrender before the police within a month of this order, the Petitioners - Sunil S/o Shantilal Ji Gandhi, Manilal S/o Shantilal Ji Gandhi and Anil S/o Shantilal Ji Gandhi shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each with separate solvent sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned. The petitioners would abide by the conditions mentioned in Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.