Suresh Kukreja vs State Of M.P.

Heard.

This is first bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail by the applicant who is in custody in connection with Crime No.12/2020, registered at police station - STF, Indore, for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 448, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC. He is in jail since 21.1.2020.

The prosecution story in short was that the applicant showed himself to be the owner of Survey No.1488/1, situated in village Khasra, Distt. Indore and entered into an agreement with objectors Shravan Advani and Anil Ropeta for sale of plots of land to them and obtained Rs.75,00,000/- from each of these objectors. However, later on, the objectors came to know that applicant - Suresh Kukreja was not the owner, but was a developer of the land and that the disputed properties and disputed plots did not belong to him but were parts of the Government land. Learned counsel in his application submits that the aforesaid land is not Government land at all and that State has never claimed this property as its own, that the applicant had entered into an agreement with the land owners who are the agriculturist for development of the land situated in Survey No.1488/1 and as a developer he had right to enter into agreements with other buyers of the land.

Learned counsel submits that in the agreement which was executed along with the owners of the land the applicant had paid stamp duties of Rs.97,00,000/- and registration fee as Rs.15,53,000/-and had it been Government land the applicant would never have paid such a huge sum on stamp duty. He also submits that he had in fact entered into loan transaction and had given the objectors cheques for repayment of loan but when such cheques were dishonored, complainants filed a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act and these complaints are still pending before the court. Learned counsel also submits that the dispute is of civil nature. Learned counsel submits that charge sheet has since been filed and the trial shall take long time for its conclusion and therefore, the bail be afforded to the applicant.

Learned public prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the objectors have opposed the bail application.

Considered.

Learned counsel for the applicant has filed synopsis along with chronology of date. Perusal of which shows that this land was shown to be in possession of certain farmers Siddhnath and his legal representatives and suit for declaration of ownership and injunction was filed by Siddhnath against the State which was registered as Civil Suit No.113A/94. This civil suit was decreed on 31.1.1997 in favour of Siddhnath and his legal representatives. The said judgment and decree was never challenged by the State Government before any Court but was only challenged by Zamindar Trust before the Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court dismissed this appeal. The first appeal judgment was again challenged by Zamindar Trust, but not by State Government. The High Court vide judgment dated 5.8.1999 again dismissed the second appeal. This judgment was then challenged by Zamindar Trust before Apex Court and vide judgment dated 22.5.2007, the Apex Court remanded the matter back to the High Court for rehearing. After this the applicant entered into agreement with farmers for development of the suit land Survey No.1488/1.

The High Court however, in S.A.No.191/1999, filed by the Zamindar Trust and farmers reversed the judgment of ownership declaration on the basis of adverse possession holding that such suit is not maintainable in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gurudwara Sahib reported in (2014) 1 SCC 689. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid position of law as held in Gurudwara Sahib (supra) case was later on reversed by the Apex court in the case of Ravinder Kaur v/s. Manjit, reported in AIR 2019 SC 3827 holding that suit can be filed to claim ownership on basis of adverse possession and the contrary view of Gurudwara Sahib (supra) was considered to be not a good law.

After considering the submissions, it is quite clear that dispute as to whether the land in question was a Government land was not out rightly decided in favour of the Government and State also did not challenge the judgment pronounced in favour of the farmers at various stages.

Learned counsel for the State although submits that State Government was not made a party and therefore, the State Government could not get the knowledge that its own land was subject to any civil dispute. However, perusal of the judgment dated 31. 1.1997 which is Dev Narayan v/s. Jiladish Mohaday & Ors, Civil Suit No.113A/94, shows that State Government through Collector had been included as defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 was Nayab Tehsildar and therefore, the State Government was very much party to the suit and learned counsel for the State cannot submit that State did not know about the dispute regarding this land. There is a substance in the submissions of the learned counsel that State Government was not very keen regarding this disputed land and did not contest the litigation proceedings tooth and nail. However, it also does not prima facie appear that the agreement which was entered into with the objectors were loan agreements. Had it been a loan agreement, a separate transaction would have been executed explicitly terming it to be a loan transaction.

Learned counsel for the objector submits that if bail were to be afforded to the applicant then the applicant should be asked to pay substantial amount to the objectors so that their interest may also be saved.

After duly considering the rival submissions, it is clear that the charge sheet now has been filed and the trial may not be concluded in near future. Although the applicant has been in jail for quite sometime but holding him up in jail for indefinite period of time also does not appear to be a correct step. At the same time, the interest of the objectors also need to be protected.

Hence, after duly considering the material on record as well the submission, the bail application of the applicant is allowed subject to depositing Rs.10.00 lac in Fixed Deposit in the form of NSS Certificate before the lower Court and further the applicant shall be required to deposit another Rs.40.00 lacs within three weeks time from the date of his release from jail. The aforesaid Rs.40.00 lacs shall also be deposited in the form of NSS Certificates. The certificate should be so executed that half of the amount should be in the name of one objector and the other half, in the name of other objector. Thus, deposit of Rs.50.00 lacs by the applicant would be necessitated for claiming his liberty. It is thus, directed that on depositing Rs.10.00 lacs, the applicant shall be released from jail on furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.2.00 lacs with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court/Committal Court for his appearance before the concerned trial court on all the dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the said court till the completion of the trial. It is also directed that after release from the jail, the applicant shall be required to pay Rs.40.00 lacs within a period of three weeks from the date of his release from jail. Failure to deposit Rs.40.00 lacs in the stipulated period of three weeks counted from the date of his release from the jail would result in cancellation of bail without reference to the court.

With the above stipulations, the bail application stands allowed in above terms.

C.c. as per rules.