Jharkhand High Court
Basuki Nath Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.1383 of 2021
------
1. Basuki Nath Yadav
2. Bhola Yadav .... .... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Umesh Kumar Singh .... .... .... Opposite Parties
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Gautam Kr., Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pradeep Kr. Verma, Addl.P.P
------
Order No.02 Dated- 06.04.2021
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to remove the defects
pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.
In view of personal undertaking given by the learned counsel for the
petitioners, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the
present.
Apprehending their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.749 of
2017 instituted under Sections 406, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the
petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the
petitioners is that the petitioner No.1 has sold the property of the informant to
the petitioner No.2 by executing a registered sale-deed. It is submitted that the
allegation against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted that petitioner
No.1 was the bonafide owner of the land being the heirs of the recorded tenant
till the date of the same being sold by the petitioner No.1 to the petitioner No.2.
Learned counsel for the petitioners draws the attention of this Court towards
para-14 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Md.
Ibrahim & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Another decided on 04.09.2009 which
reads as under:-
14. "When a sale deed is executed conveying a property claiming
ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser under such sale deed, to
allege that the vendor has cheated him by making a false representation of
ownership and fraudulently induced him to part with the sale consideration. But
in this case the complaint is not by the purchaser. On the other hand, the
purchaser is made a co-accused. It is not the case of the complainant that any of
the accused tried to deceive him either by making a false or misleading
representation or by any other action or omission, nor is it his case that they
offered him any fraudulent or 11 dishonest inducement to deliver any property or
to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce him to
do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so
deceived. Nor did the complainant allege that the first appellant pretended to be
the complainant while executing the sale deeds. Therefore, it cannot be said that
the first accused by the act of executing sale deeds in favour of the second accused
or the second accused by reason of being the purchaser, or the third, fourth and
fifth accused, by reason of being the witness, scribe and stamp vendor in regard
to the sale deeds, deceived the complainant in any manner. As the ingredients of
cheating as stated in section 415 are not found, it cannot be said that there was
an offence punishable under sections 417, 418, 419 or 420 of the Code."
And submits that as he petitioner number 1 is the bonafide owner of the
land therefore no offence punishable under section 420 of the IPC is made out. It
is then submitted no offence is made out against the petitioners. It is next
submitted that at best a dispute of civil nature can be made out against the
petitioners. It is also submitted that there is inordinate delay in institution of the
complaint. It is lastly submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to co-
operate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be
given the privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
Considering the submissions of learned counsels and the facts and
circumstances stated above, I am inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory bail
to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to surrender in the
Court of learned C.J.M., Sahibganj within six weeks from today and in the event
of their arrest or surrendering, they will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Sahibganj in connection with
Complaint Case No.749 of 2017 with the condition that they will co-operate
with the trial of the case and subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Animesh/
