Jharkhand High Court
Fagu Sahu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 1511 of 2022
------
Fagu Sahu ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. K.S. Nanda, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, Addl. P.P.
------
Order No.02 Dated- 07.03.2022
Heard the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to
remove the defects as pointed out by the stamp reporter within two
weeks.
In view of the personal undertaking of the learned counsel for
the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are
ignored for the present.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court
for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Bano
(Girda O.P.) P.S. Case No.47 of 2020 registered under sections 420/
467/468/469/470/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner got the land of
the father of the informant fraudulently transferred in his name by
making someone impersonate as the father of the informant and
making a dead person namely Jageshwar Das Baraik as attesting
witness by making somebody else impersonate as Jageshwar Das
Baraik as well. It is further submitted that the allegations against the
petitioner are all false and admittedly the said sale deed was
executed on 11.09.1991, the copy of which is kept at annexure-2 at
page no. 19-23 of the brief. It is next submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, drawing attention of this Court to
annexure-4 which is the order dated 19.07.2016, passed by the
S.D.M., Simdega, in S.A.R. 21 of 2012-13, which was a proceeding
between the informant and the petitioner, that therein, it has been
mentioned that Sulochan Das Baraik, the father of the informant was
a Chik by caste which caste does not come under the Scheduled
Tribe in view of the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Patna High
Court in CWJC No. 315 of 1979 and later on the informant admitted
that he is not a member of Scheduled Tribe, hence he did not want to
contest the case and accordingly, the said case was dismissed as the
same was not maintainable under section 71A of the Chota Nagpur
Tenancy Act. It is then submitted that because of land dispute, this
case was instituted and the petitioner is a valid purchaser of the said
land in the dispute between the parties is basically a civil dispute. It
is lastly submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with
the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the
petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail.
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 petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Hence, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of eight
weeks from the date of this order, he shall be released on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Simdega, in connection with
Bano (Girda O.P.) P.S. Case No.47 of 2020 with the condition that the
petitioner will cooperate with the investigation of the case and
appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him
and will furnish his mobile number and a copy of his Aadhar Card
in the court below with the undertaking that he will not change his
mobile number 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-
