Single judge Order rejecting the petitioners' prayer for anticipatory bail. The Court denied bail due to serious allegations of cheating and fraud regarding land sales, holding them not frivolous or premature.
Prayer for anticipatory bail rejected.
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. 490 of 2020
Versus The State of Jharkhand & another … Opposite Parties ---
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY Through Video Conferencing
--For the Petitioners : Mr. K. M. Verma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P. ---
Order No. 05 Dated 10th June 2020
Heard the learned counsel for the respective sides.
The Defects, as pointed out by the office, are ignored.
The petitioners apprehend theirs arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 562 of 2019, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.
It has been alleged that Rs. 25 Lakh was taken by the petitioners from the complainant for transferring 18.17 acres of land. Neither the sale deed was executed nor the money returned.
Mr. K. M. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners submits at the outset that the dispute is purely civil in nature. It has further been submitted that several plots of land as mentioned in the agreement dated 18.11.2016 has been transferred in the name of the complainant but the said fact was suppressed by the complainant in the complaint petition. It has further been stated that as per the agreement Rs. 2,40,12,000/- was to be paid by the complainant to the petitioner, but so far only Rs. 63,15,000/- has been paid. It has further been stated that the dispute therefore appears to be on transfer of the certain parts of land as per the agreement, but at the same time it is to be noted that the complainant has also not fulfilled his part of contract by not paying the balance amount. It has further been stated that the petitioners do not have any criminal antecedent and in fact under a conspiracy the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the petitioners in the present case.
Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail made by the petitioner.
In the complaint petition a specific statement has been made that the land owners had themselves disclosed about the petitioners taking a huge amount of money for selling the lands without taking the consent from them.
It has further been stated that on account of the fraudulent activities of the accused persons, the land owners have already cancelled the agreement since the accused persons had cheated a large number of persons. It also appears that the petitioners have sold the land which does not belong to them and the complaint petition is replete with instances of the petitioners committing fraud upon the complainant and others.
In view of the specific nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to them. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail made by the petitioners is rejected.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY,J.)
MK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prayer for anticipatory bail should be granted in the facts of the case.
Whether the allegations of cheating and fraud justify denial of anticipatory bail.
Mahaveer Mahto
Santosh Kumar Jaiswal
The State of Jharkhand
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
