Chandrashekhar Manikpuri vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7572 Chatt

                                         1


                                                                            NAFR

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                 MCRC No. 9637 of 2022

     1. Chandrashekhar Manikpuri S/o Late Govardhan Manikpuri Aged About 36
        Years R/o 174 Gautiya Para Urkura Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.,
        District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

     2. Smt. Devki Manikpuri W/o Late Govardhandas Manikpuri Aged About 70
        Years Village Urkura Post Birgaon Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

                                                                    ---- Applicants

                                      Versus

     • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Rakhi
       District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

                                                                  ---- Respondent

For Applicants : Shri Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate For State : Shri Kashif Shakeel, Dy.A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

Order On Board

14/12/2022

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicants seeks to withdraw application of applicant No.1 - Chandrashekhar Manikpuri.

In view of above, the application of applicant No.1- Chandrashekhar Manikpuri is dismissed as withdrawn.

Heard on application of applicant No.2 - Smt. Devki Manikpuri.

1. The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.201/2022 registered at Police Station - Rakhi, District - Raipur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence under Section 420, 467, 468 of IPC.

2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that a suit property was decreed in favour of the complainant who is the real brother of the applicant, against which, the applicant preferred an appeal in which, an interim order, staying the execution of judgment and decree dated 29/06/2022 was passed. While the appeal was pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Raipur, the applicants

sold the property thereby committed the offence.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that a decree was passed in favour of the complainant which was challenged by the applicant before the Appellate Court. During the pendency of that case, allegedly, the suit property was sold by the applicants. He submits that since the appeal was filed, there was no mens rea on the part of applicant No.2 to commit the said offence and the dispute is totally of civil nature and doctrine of lis pendens would apply. It is further submitted that applicant No.2 is an aged lady of 70 years having age related ailments, she is in jail since 18/10/2022 and looking to the age, ailments and overt act, she may be granted bail.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes prayer and submits that the competent Court has passed a decree in favour of the complainant declaring him as the owner of the disputed property and applicant No.2, having knowledge of the factum of decree, sold the disputed property to a 3 rd person. Therefore, it cannot be said to be a case of lis pendens. It is submitted that investigation is going on, therefore, the application may be rejected.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the age of applicant No.2, she is a lady and as submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that she is suffering from age related ailments and detention period, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant No.2- Smt. Devki Manikpuri.

7. Accordingly, the application of applicant No.2 - Smt. Devki Manikpuri is allowed. It is directed that applicant No.2 shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- along with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court on the condition that -

a) She shall appear before the trial Court regularly on each and every date, unless exempted from appearance.

b) She shall not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

The observations made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the bail application and the trial Court shall decide the case on its own merit

without being influenced by any observations made herein above. It is made clear that if any of the aforesaid conditions is violated by the applicant, the State / Objector would be free to move for cancellation of bail.

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/-

(Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge Deepti