Mahesh Kumar Khandelwal Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.2736 of 2023

Mahesh Kumar Khandelwal, S/o Late Banwari Khandelwal, resident of Vinayaka Shopping Centre, Main Road, Pagoda Chowk, Hazaribagh.

¶4

.......... Petitioner. -VersusThe State of Jharkhand .......... Opp. Party. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : None For O.P. No.2 : Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate ----- Order No.16 Date: 21.08.2024

¶5

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered under Sections 406, 420, 417, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged. As per the allegation, Umesh Kumar Sao (informant), Manoj Kumar and Deo Nandan Kumar along with two others entered into an agreement with the petitioner on 7^th February, 2021 for sale and purchase of a piece of land, measuring an area of 6.32 acres, details of which have been given in the written report of the informant. The informant and his partners also arranged payment of Rs.1.44 crores in favour of the petitioner partly paid by them and partly by the intending purchasers of the said land. However, in the meantime, they came to know that part of the said land was already transferred by the petitioner’s elder brother- Rajesh Kumar Khandelwal to his wife on 19^th June, 2018 and due to

¶7

the said reason, different sale deeds could not be executed in favour of intending purchasers. It has, thus, been alleged that the petitioner neither executed the sale deeds in favour of intending purchasers nor refunded the said amount to the informant/intending purchasers and thereby misappropriated the said amount.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no denial of the fact that the petitioner had executed the agreement with the informant and his partners on 7^th February, 2021, who were brokers/mediators with respect to sale and purchase of the said land. As per the said agreement, the informant and his partners were required to make payment of entire consideration amount i.e. Rs.7.51 crores by 7^th December, 2021 to the petitioner, however, they failed to make the said payment and hence it cannot be alleged that the petitioner with dishonest intention did not execute the sale deeds in favour of the intending purchasers.

¶9

It is also submitted that, in fact, one sale deed with respect to Khata no.1, plot no.68, measuring an area of 37 decimals was already executed in favour of the purchaser, namely, Vijay Kumar Dangi. The intention of the informant is to pressurise the petitioner to execute sale deeds without making payment of entire consideration amount. The ill motive of the informant is also evident from the fact that though the period of making payment in terms with the agreement dated 7^th February, 2021

¶10

-2-

¶11

A.B.A. No.2736 of 2023

¶12

had already ended in December, 2021, the present first information report has been lodged on 3^rd August, 2022 after lapse of about eight months. So far as the allegation that the petitioner’s brother- Rajesh Kumar Khandelwal had transferred part of the said land in favour of his wife on 19^th June, 2018 is concerned, the petitioner had preferred Original Suit No.141 of 2019, which was decreed in his favour on 19^th July, 2022 i.e. prior to lodging of the present first information report. Despite the said fact, the petitioner who is a respectable businessman has been maliciously roped in the present case. Moreover, he has already responded the notice issued to him under Section 41A Cr.P.C. The petitioner also undertakes to co-operate in ongoing investigation of the case. Hence, he may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶13

No one appears on behalf of the State.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2, however, opposes the petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that though the petitioner had received Rs.1.44 crores towards sale of the aforesaid land in favour of different persons being mediated by the informant and his partners, he neither executed the sale deeds nor refunded the said amount, which clearly indicates mischievous act on the part of the petitioner. Hence, he may not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶15

-3-

¶16

A.B.A. No.2736 of 2023

¶17

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials available on record, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner, above named, on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, in event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within three weeks from today, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount, each, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra, in connection with Chatra Sadar P.S. Case no.253 of 2022, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶18

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶19

Sanjay/

¶20

-4-

¶21

A.B.A. No.2736 of 2023

Mahesh Kumar Khandelwal v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Kumar Khandelwal v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Morful Sk. Vs the State of Jharkhand

Laltu Mitra Modak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sandeep Kumar Bhuihaar Sandeep Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Choudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jitendra Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Rajjak Vs the State of Jharkhand