Jay Parmar Vs the State of Jharkhand

The present anticipatory bail application under Sections 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest for the offences registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of Indian Penal Code, in connection with C.I.D. P.S. Case No. 30 of 2024. The case is presently pending in the court of A.J.C-XVIII cum special judge C.I.D Ranchi.

¶13

It is the prosecution case that in 2005, landowners, including the petitioner, gave 86 Kattha of land to a builder, with 40 Kattha meant for construction and 46 Kattha reserved as common open space as per a sanctioned map. It is alleged that the landowners, intending to grab the 46 Kattha, falsely claiming that the map was revised and prepared a forged development agreement and secured a new sanction for construction on the reserved area. Additionally, a boundary wall was constructed and the land was excavated in a manner, endangering the existing Ratan Height Building in which the informant is residing in a flat.

¶14

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the FIR in the instant case should have been lodged under the provisions of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita as the FIR was registered after the enforcement of the new laws. He

¶15

further submits that the informant has filed this instant case five years after taking possession of the flat in Ratan Heights. The instant F.I.R. is not maintainable as the same is lodged on the basis of records of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 20 of 2009 and in the same case this petitioner was not named. The petitioner in the aforesaid case was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated-27.03.2019 passed in A.B.A. No. 1497 of 2019. The Builder Narendra Butala has also been granted bail in A.B.A No. 1634 of 2016 on 19.09.2016 in connection with the same vigilance case. He lastly submits that from perusal of the entire FIR no case is made out under the alleged Sections. Thus, on these aforesaid grounds he prays that the instant anticipatory bail should be allowed.

¶16

Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of anticipatory bail. She submits that petitioner among others with the intention to grab the open land cheated the informant and other flat owners. She further submits that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and there is direct allegation against the petitioner among others of hatching criminal conspiracy and cheating. Thus, she prays that the instant anticipatory bail application should be dismissed.

¶17

After hearing the parties and going through the materials available on record, I find that the petitioner is the land owner. There is a development agreement with the builder. The dispute is in respect of open space. This case is based on the Vigilance Case No.20 of 2009 in which though the builder is an accused, but not this petitioner. I am of the opinion that it is not a case in which custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. Also considering the fact that the instant case has been registered on the basis of the Vigilance P.S. Case No. 20 of 2009, in connection with which the petitioner and the builder Naresh Butala (named in this case) has already been granted bail by a co-ordinate bench of this court. Thus, this anticipatory bail application is accordingly allowed .

¶18

The petitioner, above named, is directed to surrender before the learned court below within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on the event of his surrender or arrest, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned A.J.C-XVIIIcum- Special judge C.I.D Ranchi, in connection with C.I.D. P.S. Case No. 30 of 2024 subject to the condition that one of the bailors should be a close relative of the petitioner and other should be a resident of State of Jharkhand, having sufficient landed property in his name or in the name of his ancestors in which he is having share and to that effect, he has to file an affidavit before the Trial Court indicating his share in the property.

¶19

The petitioner should cooperate and join investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer once in 15 days.

¶20

R.S./

Jay Parmar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jay Parmar 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

Deepak Kumar Turi Alias Deepak Turi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amerun Begam Alias Sona Khatun Vs the State of Jharkhand

Munna Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Miru Mandal Vs State of Jharkhand

Vijay Kumar Alias Vijay Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pinku Kumar Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand