Tarun Bhagoliwal & Others vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Since both the bail applications arise from the same FIR, they are heard together and are being decided by this common order.

Applicants Tarun Bhagoliwal and Manas Bhagoliwal are in judicial custody in Case Crime No.0077 of 2024, under Sections 323, 420, 506, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station- Rajpur, District- Dehradun. They have sought their release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

According to the FIR, the applicants are trying to grab the property belonging to the informant. Earlier they had encroached a land adjoining the property of the informant, of which a report was given to the Development Authority and demolition order was passed, but, thereafter, they got a sale deed executed from Shushmadhar, and under the garb of that sale deed, started encroaching the property of the informant.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicants are bona fide purchaser; they are not encroaching on any property.

Learned counsel for the informant would submit that the applicants, under a design, are trying to grab the property of not only the informant, but various other persons. In the sale deed that they got executed from Shushmadhar, the area has been enhanced, which is beyond the area under the ownership of Shushmadhar. It is argued that under that garb, the applicants are trying to encroach the property of the informant.

Learned State Counsel adopts the arguments, as advanced by learned counsel for the informant.

It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial, or in any other proceeding.

Is it a case of encroachment of the property? If Shushmadhar had sold property to the applicants beyond the land under her ownership, who is cheated? Is it the buyer who cheated? Perhaps, these and many more questions would find answer during trial.

Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail.

The bail applications are allowed.

Let the applicants be released on bail, on their executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, by each one of them, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.