Dismissed

Mohammad Saleem Tigala v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC12 Aug 2022MCRCA/889/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC, the High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the plea, holding that the allegations of fraud regarding the sale of mortgaged land did not render the applicant a fit case for bail, especially as he signed a sale-deed claiming sole ownership.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC dismissed; applicant advised to surrender within 15 days for regular bail consideration.

Mohammad Saleem Tigala Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRCA No. 889 of 2022

¶5

Mohammad Saleem Tigala S/o - Mohammad Imamuddin Aged About 38 Years R/o - Ward No. 8, Mararpara, Balod , DistrictBalod, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer , Police Station - Balod, District-Balod, Chhattisgarh

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Applicant Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ali Afzaal Mirza, Advocate For Respondent /State Mr. Sudhir Sahu, Panel Lawyer

¶11

SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board

¶12

12/8/2022

¶13

Heard.

¶14

This is an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.303/2021 registered at Police Station Balod District Balod (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of the IPC.

¶15

The prosecution case is that the present applicant has entered into an agreement with the complainant for sale of the agricultural land situated at village Baghmara District Balod for

¶16

¶17

consideration of Rs.15 lakhs stating in the agreement that he has full right and ownership of the said land. He also obtained an advance amount to the tune of RS.1,10,000/- on 4.1.2019. Thereafter, the original land owners Sanjay Tamrakar, Mohan Khare, Sameer Khan and Mahendra Yadav executed the registered sale-deed in favour of the complainant. However, when the complainant approached the SBI, Balod for obtaining loan on such land, it was revealed that both the original owners have already taken loan on such land in the year 2018 and on the date of the sale, the land was still mortgaged and the Bank has also issued recovery notice to the land owners for the defaults. Hence, in a fraudulent manner, the applicant along with other co-accused entered into such agreement of sale, based upon which, the offence has been registered.

¶18

Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he was not aware that the land was mortgaged by the original owners. The applicant was dealing with the property (land) business and obtained commission from the purchasers and the sellers. In the present transaction also, he was duly authorised by the original title holder of the land for sale of the said land and not only the sale-deed was executed but the mutation has also taken place. She submits that from perusal of the SBI vide letters dated 1.9.2018 and 11.2.2018, it would be clear that no loan was granted, the copies of the same are annexed in support of the bail petition. She further submits that the original owners have already been enlarged on regular bail, therefore, she prays for releasing the

¶19

¶20

applicant on anticipatory bail.

¶21

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application.

¶22

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the nature of allegations that the land was mortgaged on the date of the agreement executed by the present applicant and the present applicant has not obtained any written instrument from the original owners that the land was free from all encumbrance and the applicant has also signed as a witness in the sale-deed during the agreement entered into by the present applicant and it was not mentioned that the land belonged to any other person and he himself claimed the sole ownership of such land, I am of the opinion that the present is not a fit case to extend the benefit of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to the applicant.

¶23

Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed. However, in the event, the applicant surrenders within 15 days and applies for regular bail, the concerned Court shall consider his case expeditiously, preferably on the same day, without being influenced by the observations made in this order.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶26

Shyna

¶27

Mohammad Saleem Tigala v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Saleem Tigala v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Swaroop Chand Jain Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

M/S Shriram Tranport Finance Company Limited Vs Yatish Gandhi

Anjorbai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mo. Wasimraja Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Narendra Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Paras Ram Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh