Jharkhand High Court
Dilip Das vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 7307 of 2019
------
1. Dilip Das
2. Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Ram
3. Rajesh Yadav ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Vibhor Mayank, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Suraj Verma, Spl. P.P.
------
Order No.16 Dated- 28.09.2021
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this
Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with
Sadar P.S. Case No.195 of 2019 registered under sections
467/468/469/471/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code and under
Section 82 (a) of Registration Act.
The Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners after giving
false evidence and forged documents for getting the forest land
registered and encroached the forest land and thus caused damage
to the forest. It is further submitted that the allegations against the
petitioners are all false and the petitioners have not committed any
offence and they are the power of attorney holder of the lawful
owners of land and by using the said power of attorney, they have
executed the sale deeds. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied
upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case
of R.S. Singh @ Rama Shankar Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of
Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2010 SCC OnLine Jhar 1027,
paragraph no.11 and 12 of which reads as under:-
"11. Xxxxxxxx
Upon considering the entire issues involved in the
writ application, this court had observed as follows:
"All this merely shows that the parties are at
litigating terms and both of them are claiming their
respective right, title and possession. The petitioners
are claiming right and title on the basis of registered
sale deeds obtained from the raiyats, whereas the State
has claimed that it is "protected forest" and thereby
land of the State. .......... In the aforesaid
circumstances, there being genuine dispute of right
and title, I hold that the criminal proceedings are not
warranted in law. In fact, the State Government
including its Forest Department should pursue a
remedy in the suit/appeal either pending before the
Civil Court, having competent jurisdiction, or before
this court."
On the basis of the aforesaid observations, the court
had set aside the entire criminal proceedings against
the writ petitioners.
12. In the present cases also, the nature and dispute
between the parties is identical in as much as, both
parties have claimed their respective right, title and
possession over the land under reference in these cases.
While the petitioners are claiming right and title on
the basis of registered sale deeds obtained from the
raiyats, the State as well as the Forest Department are
claiming that the lands involved in these cases, are
part of protected forest and thereby the lands of the
State.
The facts as also the nature of dispute involved in
the present applications being identical to the facts and
dispute raised in the case of Brajesh Kumar
Ray (Supra), the ratio decided by this court in the case
of Brajesh Kumar Ray (Supra) would squarely apply.
In the aforesaid situation, there being genuine
dispute over right and title, I hold that the criminal
proceedings against the petitioners are not warranted
in law. The State including its Forest Department can
pursue the remedy in the suit/appeal pending before
the Civil Court having competent jurisdiction or before
this court."
It is further submitted that the dispute of title is involved in
this case, so no criminal proceeding will lie. It is then submitted
that the sale deeds which are executed by the petitioners have
since been cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner and the
petitioners undertake that they will not execute any sale deed or
any deed of transfer, in excise of power vested upon them through
their power of attorney nor will they deal with the land in question
during the pendency of the case. It is then submitted that the
petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with the
investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners
be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned Spl. P.P. opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail and submits that some false averments have been made in the
sale deeds executed by the petitioners in capacity of power of
attorney holder but he fairly submits that there is no allegation of
any impersonation of somebody else against the petitioners.
Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as
discussed above, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the
above named petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Hence, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of
six weeks from the date of this order, they shall be released on bail
on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Hazaribagh, in connection with
Sadar P.S. Case No.195 of 2019 with the condition that the
petitioners will cooperate with the investigation of the case and
appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by
him and will furnish their mobile numbers and a copy of their
Aadhar Cards in the court below with the undertaking that they
will not change their mobile numbers during the pendency of the
case with further condition that they will not execute any sale deed
or transfer in excise of power vested upon them through their
power of attorney nor they will deal with the land during the
pendency of the case subject to the conditions laid down under
section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sonu/Gunjan-
