Allowed

Somay Soren And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Apr 2016A.B.A./492/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed anticipatory bail application filed by brothers accused of offences under IPC Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 506, 120B/34, observing that the matter involved a civil dispute over property partition and sale to Tata Steel Limited.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail with direction to surrender within three weeks and release upon furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000 and two sureties satisfying conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC.

Somay Soren And Ors. Vs The State Of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A. B. A. No. 492 of 2016

¶3

¶4

Somay Soren

¶5

Ram Soren

¶6

Dasrath Soren, all 1-3 sons of late Ghasi Ram Soren, residents of Village Gorgora/Baliguma, P.O. Bhilaphari & P. S. MGM (Mango), District Singhbhum East … … Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶10

For the Petitioners : Mr. Parth S. A. Swaroop Pati, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, A.P.P. For the O. P. No. 2 : Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate

¶11

03/11.04.2016 Heard Mr. Parth S. A. Swaroop Pati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2.

¶12

Petitioners haver prayed for grant of anticipatory bail, as they are apprehending their arrest in connection with C/1 Case No. 1791 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 506, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

A complaint case was instituted in which it was alleged that 1.0386 acres of land recorded in Khata No. 106, Mauza – Baliguma Thana no. 1150, Ward No. 10, Dimna, Mango had been sold to M/s Tata Steel Limited by the accused no. 4 in connivance with the petitioners. Subsequently, on verification the said fact was found to be true and it was alleged that the signatures of the complainant and another of his brother who had signed on the sale deed were found to be forged and fabricated. It has also been alleged that an amount of Rs. 1,45,40,400/- had been paid to the petitioners by cheque and cash but the same was not paid to the mother and sister of the complainant.

¶14

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners and the complainant are own brothers. It has been submitted that there has been a family partition and an affidavit to that effect has been sworn by the mother and sister of the complainant in which they have specifically stated that the property in their share were sold to M/s. Tata Steel Limited. Learned counsel submits that a proceeding was also started before the Deputy Commissioner in which

¶15

-2-

¶16

after hearing all the parties permission was granted with respect to the sale of the plots of land in question to M/s. Tata Steel Limited. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the entire allegation as would seem are civil in nature and, therefore, the petitioners deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶17

Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, has referred to the solemn affirmation of the complainant and has submitted that by practicing fraud false signature of the complainant as well as one of his brothers was incorporated in the sale deed as witnesses and such circumstance do make out a case under Sections 406, 420, 467 of the Indian Penal Code and taking into consideration all these aspects cognizance has been taken by the learned court below and the petitioners were summoned to face trial. It has also been submitted that the property was never partitioned between the brothers.

¶18

The entire dispute seems to be with respect to the property which was sold to the M/s. Tata Steel Limited after obtaining permission from the Deputy Commissioner dated 09.07.2010. It further appears that the sister and mother of the complainant has also sworn an affidavit with respect to the partition which had already taken place and that the property falling in the share of the petitioners as well as mother and sister of the complainant had been sold to M/s. Tata Steel Limited.

¶19

Such circumstance, therefore, indicates the presence of the civil dispute and the petitioners deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, while allowing this application, the petitioners, named above, are directed to surrender in the court below within three weeks from today and on such surrender, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, in connection with C/1 Case No. 1791 of 2015, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶20

(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶21

Umesh/-

Somay Soren And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Somay Soren And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand

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

Gautam Roy Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Ravindra Kumar Barnwal And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Devendra Marandi Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Pramod Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Raj Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Matiur Rahman Vs The State Of Jharkhand