Tejram Malviya vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan, J

Heard on this first application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant Tejram

Malviya.

The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 571/2020 registered at Police Station, Kotwali, District-Chhindwara for

commission of offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 197, 198, 423, 466, 471, 423, 466 and 471 of the IPC.

The case of the prosecution, against the applicant, in short, is that applicant filed an application before the Revenue Authority for deleting the name of

victim Ramaji and other two persons. The village Patwari, sent the report that all persons whose name are reflected in the Revenue records died

including Ramaji. Later-on, the Revenue Officer deleted the name of victim Ramaji and other two persons. Thereafter, applicant by taking the

advantage of this deletion, sold out this land to some other person and received money more than Rs.1,00,00,000 (One Crore). When Ramaji came in

knowledge of that conspiracy, he lodged the report.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is the actual owner of the disputed land. In Column No.12, the name of victim along with

other two persons was mutated as a possession holder. He further submits that the applicant neither filed an application for deleting the name of victim

nor signed on any proceedings of the Court. The applicant has falsely been implicated in this case. He is an old aged person, not feeling well and

developed some physical problem because he is totally confined to bad. In these circumstances, if he may granted anticipatory bail, he will cooperate

Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the application and submits that it is the applicant, who made a false

complaint before the Revenue Authority and with the connivance of the village Patwari, submitted a false report about the victim that victim is no

more now and thereafter, sold out the land by showing that it is not disputed anywhere.

Having heard both the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the case diary. No doubt, there has been a dispute between Ramaji and applicant and

some Revenue and Civil cases have been filed and that cases traveled up to the Appellate Court. It is prima-facie reflected that the applicant is well in

knowledge that victim Ramaji is alive not dead. But on the disputed application filed by the applicant and with the connivance of the village Patwari,

they got succeeded to delete the name of Ramaji from the Revenue record and taking the advantage of that deletion, sold out the land. It is the matter

of Investigation whether the alleged application has been filed by the applicant for deleting the name of the victim before the Revenue Court or not.

But prima-facie there is a strong criminal case available against the applicant and the applicant is required in Investigation.

In these circumstances this Court is not inclined to release applicant on anticipatory bail.

Consequently, this first application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant is

hereby dismissed.