Jharkhand High Court
Ramawtar Khaitan @ Ramawatar ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.1454 of 2021
------
Ramawtar Khaitan @ Ramawatar Khaitan .... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Anjani Kr. Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. V. S. Sahay, Addl.P.P
------
Order No.02 Dated- 07.04.2021
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
Learned counsel for the petitioner 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
petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the
present.
Apprehending his arrest in connection with Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case
No.550 of 2020 instituted under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of
anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation
against the petitioner is that the petitioner fraudulently executed Sale-Deed
No.484 dated 21.05.2020 which has since been cancelled on the ground that the
said land in respect of which the sale-deed was executed by the petitioner, is a
government land and has been declared so by the Civil Court and the vendors
of the petitioner was not in possession of the land at the time of the execution of
the sale-deed. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It
is further submitted that the suit of the vendors of the petitioner was decreed
and the same was set aside in Title Appeal No.35 of 2006 and against that
Second Appeal No.73 of 2009 was preferred by the petitioner which was
allowed and the matter was remanded and thereafter again the appeal of the
State was allowed on 04.12.2014 and again the petitioner filed Second Appeal
No.84 of 2015 which has since been admitted for hearing by this Court vide
order dated 15.02.2017 after framing the substantial question of law to be
decided. It is then submitted that at best the sale-deed executed by the petitioner
is hit by principle of lis pendens. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the
attention of this Court towards para-34 of Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
reported in (2016) 10 SCC 767 which reads as under:-
34. "The role of the Sub-Registrar (Registration) stands discharged, once
the document is registered (see Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan [State of
U.P. v. Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan, AIR 1961 SC 787] ). Section 17 of
the 1908 Act deals with documents which require compulsory registration.
Extinguishment deed is one such document referred to in Section 17(1)(b).
Section 18 of the same Act deals with documents, registration whereof is
optional. Section 20 of the Act deals with documents containing interlineations,
blanks, erasures or alterations. Section 21 provides for description of property
and maps or plans and Section 22 deals with the description of houses and land
by reference to government maps and surveys. There is no express provision in
the 1908 Act which empowers the Registrar to recall such registration. The fact
whether the document was properly presented for registration cannot be reopened
by the Registrar after its registration. The power to cancel the registration is a
substantive matter. In absence of any express provision in that behalf, it is not
open to assume that the Sub-Registrar (Registration) would be competent to
cancel the registration of the documents in question. Similarly, the power of the
Inspector General is limited to do superintendence of Registration Offices and
make rules in that behalf. Even the Inspector General has no power to cancel the
registration of any document which has already been registered." (Emphasis
supplied)
And submits that the said sale-deed has been illegally cancelled by the
Deputy Commissioner. It is next submitted that the co-accused, with similar
allegations, have already been given the privileges of anticipatory bail by this
Court vide order dated 05.04.2021 passed in A.B.A. No.1592 of 2021. It is next
submitted that the petitioner undertakes that he will not go to the said land in
question unless and until the same is finally decided by the court during the
pendency of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner is ready and
willing to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted
that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
Considering the submissions of learned counsels and the facts and
circumstances stated above, I am inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory bail
to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the
Court of learned C.J.M., Deoghar within six weeks from today and in the event
of his arrest or surrendering, he will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond
of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount to
the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Deoghar in connection with Deoghar (Town)
P.S. Case No.550 of 2020 with the condition that he will co-operate with the
investigation of the case and appear before the investigating officer as and
when noticed by him and furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the
Aadhar Card with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number
during the pendency of the case and he will not go to the said land in
question unless and until the same is finally decided by the court during the
pendency 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/
