Jharkhand High Court
Binod Mahawar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.3458 of 2021
------
1. Binod Mahawar
2. Dhannu Mahawar @ Ghanshyam Das Mahawar
.... .... .... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, Addl.P.P
------
Order No.02 Dated- 25.06.2021
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 Sahibganj (Town) P.S. Case
No.208 of 2019 instituted under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code, the
petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation
against the petitioners is that the co-accused Chaitan Mahawar has sold the land to
the father of the petitioners and the informant claims to be the owner of the said
land, hence, this false case has been foisted against the petitioners. It is submitted
that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted that the
complaint filed by the informant after inordinate delay has not been supported by
the affidavit and relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
the case of Priyanka Srivastava & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in
(2015) 6 SCC 287 submits that the registration of F.I.R. is bad in law. It is further
submitted that the father of the petitioners namely Late Shyam Sunder Mahawar
purchased the land in question from Usha Devi @ Usha Gupta on 11.04.2011 by
way of a sale agreement and since then the petitioners are enjoying over the land in
question and also paying the tax to the concerned department and the informant
has no right whatsoever over the land in question prior to institution of the
complaint which upon being forwarded to police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the
F.I.R. of this case has been registered. It is also submitted that the informant filed a
Title Suit No.25 of 2014 in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division-1, Sahibganj. It
is lastly submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to co-operate with the
investigation 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 Sahibganj (Town)
P.S. Case No.208 of 2019 with the condition that they will co-operate with the
investigation of the case and appear before the investigating officer as and when
noticed by him and furnish their mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar
Card with an undertaking that they will not change their mobile number 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/
