Jharkhand High Court
Bhim Munda vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 3646 of 2022
Bhim Munda ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
--------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, A.P.P.
--------
05/ 18.07.2022 Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
This anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the above-
named applicant seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No. 56 of
2018, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.
Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that as per F.I.R.
allegations, sale-deed No. 12269 dated 12.11.2002 in the case of Doctor Nishi Kumari
vrs. Bhim Munda has been ordered to be annulled. It has been held that Manual Oraon,
Bijla Oraon, Anand Oraon transferred the land fraudulently and were responsible for
fraudulent transfer. The Deputy Commissioner-cum- District Registrar, Ranchi directed to
file case against transferor Manual Oraon and purchaser Bhim Munda and also against
identifier Punai Oraon and the witnesses Aaspati Toppo and Anil Oraon.
Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is
purchaser in the concerned sale-deed and as per judgment in Fraudulent Registration
Case No.13 of 2017-18 three is specific finding of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi that
it was vendor Anand Oraon who by misrepresenting himself as the owner of the land
acquired by the State for the purpose of A.G. Office Employees Co-operative Society
before the authorities concerned had fraudulently transferred the land in question vide
registered deed of sale vide Sale Deed No. 12269 of 2002 and consequently sale-deed
was annulled. It is also further submitted that the applicant was the bona fide purchaser
and he had also paid consideration amount. The applicant has no criminal antecedent
and he is not fleeing from justice. Indeed this case has been filed just to humiliate the
applicant.
Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the
contentions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and contended that the
applicant was having connivance with the transferor. He had thorough knowledge of the
fact that the land in question never belonged to the vendor.
In view of the above no useful purpose would be served in keeping the
present application pending or calling for counter affidavit from the State. Without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is entitled to be released
on anticipatory bail, at this stage.
In the event of arrest, let the applicant-Bhim Munda be released on
anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the
following conditions :-
i. The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a
police officer as and when required.
ii. The applicant 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 from disclosing such
facts to the court or any police officer or tamper with the
evidence.
iii. In default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the
investigating officers shall be at liberty to file appropriate
application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the
applicant.
iv. The applicant shall co-operate in the trial before the court below
and in case of non-cooperation, the trial court would be at liberty
to cancel the bail of the applicant without any reference to this
Court.
(Subhash Chand, J.)
P.K.S.
