Mohammad Javed Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:45770

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4566 of 2025

¶5

Order Reserved on 29.08.2025

¶6

Order delivered on 09.09.2025

¶7

Mohammad Javed S/o Abdul Khalid Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Sadi, Madnapur, Thana Chilla District Banda, Uttar Pradesh Temporary Address- Gafur Masjid, Block No. 2, Rented House of Haji Abdul, District Raipur, (C.G.)

¶8

... Applicant(s)

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station, D.D. Nagar, District Raipur, (C.G.)

¶11

	...Respondent(s)
For Applicant	Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate
For Respondent/State	Mr. Kishan Lal Sahu, Dy. Govt. Advocate
For Objector	Mr. Sourabh Sonwani, Advocate

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶13

CAV Order

¶14

This is the second bail application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested on 16.01.2025 in connection with Crime No. 592 of 2022, registered at Police Station – DD Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 420,467,468,471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. First bail of the applicant has been

¶15

Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.09 14:58:47 +0530

¶16

2

¶17

dismissed on merit on 06.05.2025 in MCRC No. 1984 of 2025.

¶18

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 12.08.2021 complainantManmohan Singh Gaba lodged a complaint in the police station alleging that he has purchased property bearing Khasra No. 260/10 area admeasuring 7000 sq.ft. from Shine City Dream Realtor O/o 1/55 Fourth Floor R Square Complex Gomati Nagar, Lucknow (U.P.) through registered sale-deed on 22.03.2021, but mutation proceeding could not be done. When the complainant initiated mutation proceeding, it was found that the said land has already been sold thrice. After verification, it was found that the house was sold on the basis of forged documents prepared by Mohammad Javed S/o Abdul Khalid resident of House No. 178 District- Banda (U.P.) and he has sold the multi-storied building situated at khasra No. 207/10 area administering 7000 sq fit on 19.05.2021 through registered sale deed to Rupesh Choubey and thereafter Rupesh Choubey sold the property to Ashoka Biryani through proprietor- Krishnakant Ramavatar Tiwari, S/o Ramavatar Tiwari, R/o Maruti Homes Flat No. 601 Hirapur Road Raipur on 02.08.2021. It is also case of the prosecution that it is found that Mohammad Javed, S/o Abdul Khalid has fabricated the documents to grab the property of the complainant and thus committed offence of conspiracy. On the basis of the complaint and material on record, offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC has been registered against the applicant.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case and he was not

¶20

3

¶21

involved in the offence registered against him. He would further submit

¶22

that there was no transaction made in the bank account of the applicant and the amount was credited in the bank account of original property owner Asif Nadeem and the prosecution has not impleaded the seller as party to the case who has sold the property mischievously to two different purchasers by playing fraud with the complainant. He would further submit that authorization letter with regard to sale of the aforesaid property was issued by only one of the Board of Directors i.e. Rasid Nasim whereas Mr. Amir Khan can sell the property, however the authorization letter issued in favour of the applicant to execute the sale deed dated 24.05.2021 was signed by all the Board members. He would further submit that Manmohan Singh Gaba is also having many criminal cases due to which he is being absconded and try to flee out of India. He would further submit that the co-accused Rupesh Choubey was granted anticipatory bail by the learned session court on 06.12.2022. He would further submit that co-accused Krishna Kant Tiwari has challenged his cancellation of bail order before this High Court in Crmp No. 2379/2023 wherein the Hon’ble High Court granted

¶23

stay in favour of Krishna Kant Tiwari, vide order dated 10.11.2023.

¶24

He would further submit that as per charge sheet, the applicant is a POP worker in the construction site of co-accused Roopesh Choubey

¶25

4

¶26

and he has not cheated anyone by getting any wrongful gain, each and everything regarding land in question was in the knowledge of Roopesh Choubey, therefore, Rupesh Choubey and his brother Hitesh Choubey have committed the alleged crime. To substantiate this submission, he has placed on record copy of alleged bills pertaining to work of POP as well as some bills submitted before Pathya Pushtak Nigam. He would further submit that Rupesh Choubey has joined his hands with each other and used the applicant as tool in the case and executed registered sale deed in his favour and he being power of attorney holder sold the land to land owners. He would further submit that allegation levelled by the prosecution is concocted as someone has signed the document impersonating himself as Mohammed Javed and affidavit sworn on behalf of the applicant was seized from the possession of Roopesh Choubey and co-accused has prepared forged documents with Krishnakant Tiwari. He would further submit that the land is in question at present is in possession of Krishnakant Tiwari wherein he is running a restaurant and against him a civil Suit is also pending. He would further submit neither the applicant has hidden his identity nor he received any amount from the complainant. He would further submit that on 19.08.2019 a sale agreement was executed between Shine City Dream and brother of Rupesh Choubey, who is the proprietor of Hope Enterprise in which endorsement of payment of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- through RTGS has been mentioned in the bank account of Shine City Infra Project and the applicant has not received single

¶27

5

¶28

penny of amount. Learned counsel for the applicant has also filed applications for issuing direction as observed by this Court while deciding the earlier bail application of the applicant and would submit that the land in question was sold by authorized person of Sine City Infra to Manmohan Gaba where cheques were issued by Shashwat Bank Thanke, Maharashtra. He would further submit that as per agreement dated 19.08.2019 between Hitesh Choubey and Shine City Dream Retailer, payment of Rs. 1,40,000,00/- has been sent through RTGS from Bank of Baroda in the bank account maintained by Shine City Dream Retailer in the Fedral Bank, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow and would submit that no steps have been taken by the prosecution to elicit the person who is actual culprit. He would further submit that the applicant is in jail since 16.01.2025 and would pray for allowing the bail application.

¶29

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the bail application would submit that earlier the bail application of the applicant was rejected by this court on merit and no change of circumstances has been shown by the applicant to file present second bail application, therefore, second bail application is liable to be rejected on this count alone. He would further submit that the applicant along with co-accused have played active role in preparing forged documents and use it to sell other land owners for earning illegal profit. He would submit that the applicant is resident of Uttar Pradesh and if bail is granted to him then there is chance of absconding and letter was written to Branch

¶30

6

¶31

Manager, Federal Bank, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow to provide information regarding account number 16790200000683 of Shine Dream City Company wherein he has stated that in the said account transactions were done, as such account was put on hold. He would further submit that directors of Sign Dream City namely Mohd. Asif, Rashid Naseem, Shamshad Ansari, Shahid Akhtar were found to be involved in the alleged crime, therefore, notices were issued to them to appear before Police Station DD Nagar for recording their statements, yet they did not appear before the Police Station which shows prima-facie involvement of the applicant as well as co-accused are exists, as such custodial interrogation of the applicant is required so that the real fact may come on record.

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶33

From perusal of the case diary, it is quite vivid, that sale deed has been executed on the basis of authorization letter given by Rashid Khan and Amir Khan to the applicant and on the basis of which one property was sold to different land owner thrice. The prosecution has also arrayed the directors Mohd. Asif, Rashid Naseem, Shamshad Ansari, Shahid Akhtar and investigation is started. From the case diary, it is also reflected, that earlier sale deed dated 19.08.2019 was executed between shine genex private limited through its Director Asif Naseem, aged about 34 years S/o. Naseem Ahmad R/o. 1/6, 4th floor, R Chowk complex, Vipulkhand, Gomti Nagar, Luknow (UP) and Hope Enterprises through Hitesh Choubey wherein the shine genex was seller and this property has

¶34

7

¶35

been sold through power of attorney given to the present applicant by director of Shine City Dream wherein the seller of executant of earlier sale deed Asif Nasaeem was director. This clearly prima-facie reflect that present applicant and the Directors Mohd. Asif, Rashid Naseem, Shamshad Ansari, Shahid Akhtar are directly involved in the commission of offence. Further considering the fact, that despite issuance of notice by the prosecution co-accused are not appearing before the prosecution, as such custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary to elicit the truth. Even otherwise, the complainant has not been able to point out what are the change circumstances after rejection of earlier bail application by this Court. 06.05.2025. His earlier bail application has already been rejected on merit; as such no new ground is made out for consideration of second bail of the applicant. Considering, prima-facie involvement of the applicant, this Court is of the view that the applicant is not entitled to be released on regular bail. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant is rejected.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(Narendra Kumar Vyas)

¶38

Judge

¶39

Santosh

Mohammad Javed v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Javed v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rupesh Goel Vs Shri Prabhat Malik

Nirajan Saxena Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santosh Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gendram Vs (Died), Krishna Verma, Through Legal Heirs

Utkarsh Ottalwar Vs Ashok Kumar Tiwari

Mukesh Kumar Agrawal Vs Munni Devi