High Court of Jharkhand rejected the petition for anticipatory bail filed by Rajesh Kumar Kasera and Baby Devi. The petitioners feared arrest in a case alleging fraud regarding a land sale agreement and government subsidy. The bench found the nature of allegations serious and declined to grant bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2776 of 2015
Versus
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
For the Petitioners : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate For the O. P. No. 2 : Mr. A. K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mr. Awnish Shankar, A.P.P.
18/07.04.2016 Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. A. K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 and Mr. Awnish Shankar, learned A.P.P. Petitioners have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail, as they are apprehending their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 1017 of 2014 arising out of Sadar (Town) P.S. Case No. 17 of 2013 corresponding to G. R. No. 56 of 2013 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
Initially a complaint petition was instituted by the opposite party no. 2 being C.P. Case No. 1006 of 2012 in which it was alleged that the petitioner no. 1 who is the son of the complainant and the petitioner no. 2 who happens to be the daughter-in-law of the complainant in connivance with each other had got the complainant sign on some papers on the pretext of granting subsidy by the government but subsequently it could be detected that she has put her signature in the agreement for sale of Khas Mahal being Holding No. 410 along with other details of the land and acceptance of money.
The complaint petition was sent to the Police for registering and instituting a case under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. pursuant to which Sadar P. S. Case No. 17 of 2013 was instituted.
After investigation Police had submitted final form and on protest being filed by the opposite party no. 2 it was treated as a
-2-
complaint petition being Complaint Case No. 1017 of 2014 and cognizance was taken and, therefore, the petitioners apprehend their arrests in view of the said facts.
Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the final form submitted by the Investigating Officer and has submitted that the petitioners have been implicated only at the instance of the youngest son of the opposite party no. 2. It has been submitted that the petitioners did not have any concern with the alleged agreement which has been prepared. Learned counsel further submits that having found the case to be that of a civil dispute, final form was submitted pursuant to which on protest cognizance has been taken and in such circumstances, therefore, the petitioners deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Mr. A. K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2, has initially referred to the case diary more specifically to Paragraphs – 7, 8, 9, 10 which contains the statements of some of the witnesses including the restatement of the informant. It has been submitted that although the witnesses have supported the factum of the occurrence but only on the basis of the supervision report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police which itself is a figment of imagination on the part of the Deputy Superintendent of Police the final report has been prepared by the Investigating Officer stating certain facts which had never come out in course of investigation. Learned senior counsel has also submitted that the petitioner no. 1 being the son had deliberately and in order to get wrongful gain to himself had on the false pretext made the opposite party no. 2 sign on the documents which the opposite party no. 2 had signed believing that the same shall result in her obtaining government subsidy for her treatment.
In reply, Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the learned Magistrate is not precluded from looking into the case diary and in differing with the final form so submitted by the Investigating Officer and issuing notice upon the informant prior to acceptance of the final form and it does not support
-3-
the contentions raised by the learned senior counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
From the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties the dispute as it seems is with respect to the alleged act on the part of the petitioners with the complainant who is the mother of the petitioner no. 1. It appears that the allegations against the petitioners have been supported by the witnesses in course of investigation but only on account of the supervision note of the Deputy Superintendent of Police the basis of which his unknown the Investigating Officer had submitted a final form. The protest petition also specifically levelled allegations against the petitioners of making the informant believe that she is signing on the documents for getting subsidy from the government but instead the same was an agreement for sale with certain conditions inserted therein.
In view of the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail and the same is accordingly rejected.
Umesh/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail given the apprehension of arrest in a case alleging cheating and forgery.
Whether the dispute is essentially a civil dispute or a criminal case warranting investigation.
Rajesh Kumar Kasera
Baby Devi @ Beby Devi
State of Jharkhand
Parasmani Kuer
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
