Allowed

Manish Gupta and Anr. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC3 Mar 2017MCRCA/1316/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of two anticipatory bail applications by identical applicants in a similar crime involving fraud. It held the dispute regarding a forged will and sale deeds is civil in nature with a pending suit, making it a fit case for bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed; release on personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety, subject to standard conditions of appearance and non-interference.

Manish Gupta and Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Anticipatory Bail | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

M.CR.C.(A). No. 1316 of 2016

¶5

Manish Gupta, S/o. Late Krishna Kumar Gupta, Aged About 48 Years, R/o. Ramanujganj Road, Ambikapur, Tahsil Ambikapur, District -Surguja, Chhattisgarh

¶6

Prakhar Jaiswal, S/o. Shri Radheshyam Jaiswal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o. Ward No. 11, Baikunthpur, District- Korea, Chhattisgarh .

¶7

----Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station, Baikunthpur, District- Korea, Chattisgarh.

¶10

---- Respondent

¶11

AND

¶12

M.CR.C.(A). No. 1332 of 2016

¶13

Bhupendra Yadav, S/o. Shriram Pravesh Yadav, Aged About 32 Years, R/o. Charcha, Police Station- Charcha, Tahsil- Baikunthpur, District- Korea, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

----Applicant

¶15

Versus

¶16

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : Station House Officer, Police Station -Baikunthpur, District- Korea, Chhattisgarh.

¶17

	---- Respondent
For Applicants	: Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate &
	Ms. Pritha Ghoshal, Advocate
For Respondent/State	: Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Dy. Govt. Advocate.

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

¶19

Order On Board

¶20

03/03/2017

¶21

Since both the aforesaid bail applications arise out of same crime number which are in similar in nature, they are heard analogously and same are being disposed of by this common order.

¶22

¶23

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.66/2016 registered at Police Station- Baikunthpur, District – Korea (C.G.), for offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, the applicants have preferred these applications for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶24

As per case of the prosecution, a report was made by Nawal Ram who was son of Mohan Barga that a false will was got executed in favour of Balram by Mohan Barga and on the basis of said will, different sale deeds were executed by Balram in favour of Bhuri Bai on 14-8-2015 and therefore, a report was made that on the basis of forged will, sale deed was executed and thereby the aforesaid offence has been committed.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for the applicants would submit that entire nature of allegations are civil in nature and the will and subsequent will are subject of civil suit which is still pending before the Civil Court and at this stage, if a finding is given that will is forged, the entire civil suit is deemed to be decided, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant Bhuri Bai is a bona fide purchaser and Balram Yadav is a beneficiary of will. He would further submit that petition under Section 482 has been filed by the petitioner Bhuri Bai wherein reply filed by the State would show that the nature of dispute is a civil. It is further submitted that similarly placed co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail by this Court in M.Cr.C.A. No.1112/16 and 1126/2016 vide order dated 23.12.2016, as such considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, benefit of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., may be extended to the present applicants.

¶26

¶27

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application, however, he do not dispute the fact that similarly placed co-accused has been enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶29

Perused the case diary and documents in respect of the sale deed. It appears that copy of sale deed would show that civil suit is pending in respect of the sale deed dated 22-8-2011. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the disputes appears to be civil in nature and further considering the fact that similarly placed co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail by this Court in M.Cr.C.(A). No.1112/16 and 1126/2016 vide order dated 23.12.2016, I am of the considered opinion, prima facie that it is a fit case where benefit of Section 438 of Cr.P.C., can be extended to the present applicants.

¶30

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid offence, they shall be released on bail by the officer arresting them on executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer. The applicants shall also abide by the following conditions :

¶31