Chattisgarh High Court

Bhajanlal Agrawal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 February, 2023

                                        -1-



                                                                            NAFR
            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                            MCRCA No. 1688 of 2022
     • Bhajanlal Agrawal S/o Shri Ram Manorath Agrawal, Aged About 72
       Years, R/o. New Shanti Nagar, Gorkha Colony, Raipur, District Raipur
       (C.G.)
                                                                    ---- Applicant
                                     Versus
     • State Of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, District
       Raipur (C.G.)
                                                                ----Non-applicant

For Applicant - Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate.
For State/non-applicant - Ms. Priyamvada Singh, Deputy Govt. Advocate.
Mr. Anoop Majumdar, Advocate for the complainant.
                 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
                               Order on Board
16-02-2023


1.

This is first application filed by the applicant before this Court under

Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in connection

with Crime No.618/2022 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur,

District Raipur, Chhattisgarh for offence punishable under Section 420

read with Section 34 of the IPC.

2. The case of prosecution is that, on 27-09-2022 a complaint was lodged

by complainant Nirmal Mahawar and Shanti Mahawar against the

present applicant and co-accused persons making allegation that an

order of mutation was passed by the Additional Tahsildar, Raipur in

favour of the applicant vide order dated 24-08-2021 by suppressing the

factual aspect and misinterpreting the judgment of civil court. Land

bearing survey No.190/6 was subject matter of the civil suit, which was

decided on 09-04-1976 and it was decreed in favour of the plaintiff of

that suit. Thereafter, an application for mutation was moved by the

present applicant before the Tahsildar; which was allowed; the matter

traveled upto the Board of Revenue and vide order dated 01-06-2015

the Board of Revenue set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar.

Thereafter WP227 No.617/2015 was preferred by the present applicant

before this Court and ultimately it was withdrawn, but earlier to

withdrawal of the writ petition pending before this Court, a fresh

application was moved by the present applicant before the Tahsildar for

mutation and same was allowed without affording any opportunity of

hearing to the complainant on 24-08-2021. The allegation against the

present applicant and other co-accused persons is that the present

applicant in connivance with revenue authorities got mutated his name

in the revenue record fraudulently. On such complaint police registered

the offence as stated above.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that in the civil suit

which was decided 09-04-1976 there was certain observations in his

favour, therefore, the application for mutation was filed before the

Tahsildar which was allowed. Ultimately, the Board of Revenue set

aside the order passed by the Tahsildar and against which a writ petition

was preferred before this Court and it was also withdrawn. Before

withdrawal of the writ petition an application was moved before the

Tahsildar for mutation and same was allowed and name of the applicant

has been recorded in the revenue records. He would further submit that

he has not committed any offence of cheating, he simply moved an

application for mutation before the Tahsildar, which was allowed. The

order passed by the Tahsildar is appealable and if it is passed contrary

to law or without affording any opportunity of hearing to the complainant

party, it can be set aside by the appellate authority and the appeal is

pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and a writ petition

is also pending before High Court against the same order. Thus, he

would pray for grant of anticipatory bail to the present applicant.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the

application.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant would submit that the present

applicant was not a plaintiff in the suit which was decided in the year

1976 and there was no observation in his favour, even though he moved

an application for mutation which was allowed by the Tahsildar. He

would further submit that the order of mutation which was passed in

favour of the applicant was set aside by the Board of Revenue and

thereafter, a writ petition was filed before this Court and during

pendency of that writ petition the applicant moved an application for

mutation and fraudulently got mutated his name in the revenue records.

He would submit that the present applicant in connivance with other

revenue officers has committed offence punishable under Section 420

of the IPC. He would also submit that there is report of Director of

prosecution that offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC is

made out against the present applicant and other co-accused persons.

Therefore, he would submit that the application for grant of anticipatory

bail filed by the applicant deserves to be dismissed.

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

7. From the case diary it appears that the FIR was lodged by the

complainant against the present applicant and other co-accused

persons making allegation of cheating . Earlier land bearing survey

No.190/6 was recorded in the name of someone and in the Civil Suit

No. 241-A/75 a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff of that suit

and thereafter an application was moved by the present applicant for

mutation before the Tahsildar, which was allowed. Thereafter, it was

challenged before the authorities and the Board of Revenue set aside

the order passed by the Tahsildar. A writ petition was preferred by the

applicant and during pendency of that writ petition an application was

moved for mutation before the Tahsildar, and same was allowed. If any

application was moved by the present applicant before any of the

authorities and same has been allowed by that authority, then the

present applicant or such person cannot be held guilty for offence, if any

order is passed in his favour, it is discretion and wisdom of that authority

and for that act of that authority, a person or the present applicant

cannot be held guilty. The order passed by the Tahsildar is appealable

and as informed by the learned counsel for the applicant, an appeal is

pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and a writ petition

is also pending before this Court against the same order. Considering

the above aspect of the matter, in my opinion it is a fit case to extend

benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed and it is ordered

that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with aforesaid

offence, he shall be released on anticipatory bail by the officer arresting

him on his executing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of

the officer arresting him. The applicant shall also abide by the following

conditions:-

(i) that he shall make himself available for interrogation before the

investigation officer as and when required;

(ii) that he shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement,

threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the

case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to

the Court or any police officer.