Jharkhand High Court
Amit Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A. B. A. No. 5615 of 2022
Amit Singh .... .. ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand.
2.Ramesh Oraon .. ... ...Opp. Party(s)
...........
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.........
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rohit Roy, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P. D. Agrawal, APP
For the O. P. No.2 : Mr. Awanish Shekhar, Advocate
......
06/ 15.09.2022. Apprehending his arrest, petitioner above-named has moved this Court
for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case
No.6181 of 2021 for the offence registered under Sections 323, 420, 467, 468,
471, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Heard the parties.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the matter
relates to an area measuring 5 acres 53 decimals, situated at 62, Circular Road,
Ranchi, which was originally recorded in the name of Sri R. N. Mukherjee,
who died leaving behind one son, namely, Birendra Nath Mukherjee, who
executed registered Will in favour of his wife, Ranu Priti Mukherjee creating
life interest in her favour and thereafter the said property was to be devolve
on his son. Despite life interest created in favour of Ranu Priti Mukherjee, she
executed an agreement of sale in favour of Janab Salim Saheb.
It is further submitted that her daughter-in-law Dipti Mukherjee and
their children executed a Power of Attorney in the year 2001 in favour of
petitioner no.1 [Kumud Kumar Jha] to look after the cases and manage the
property and thereafter in the year 2004, she executed a power of attorney in
favour of petitioner no.2 [Alok Kumar Choudhary] with power to alienate the
property. It is further submitted that on the strength of this power of attorney,
a part of the property was transferred to the petitioner no.1 in the year 2006
and in favour of the petitioner no.2 in the year 2004.
It is further submitted that said Janab Salim Saheb filed Title Suit No.35
of 1990 again impleading Ranu Priti Mukherjee and after her death, her
daughter-in-law, Dipti Mukherjee and other successors were impleaded, but
the said suit was dismissed on 12.09.2008 and against the same, Title Appeal
being Title Appeal No.112 of 2008 was preferred which was also dismissed.
A false statement has been made in the Complaint petition that the said appeal
was allowed. A copy of the judgment has been annexed with the complaint
petition.
It is further submitted that said Janab Salim Saheb filed Title Suit
No.333 of 2006 for specific performance of contract which is subjudice at
present stage. The complainant is the power of attorney holder of said Janab
Salim Saheb and the present case has been filed to pressurise the petitioners.
It is further submitted that earlier criminal cases filed by said Janab
Salim Saheb has already been quashed by this Hon'ble Court in Cr.M.P.
NO.1476 of 2006 and Cr.M.P. No.309 of 2009.
The complainant has no locus to challenge or basis to allege that the
power of attorney executed in favour of the petitioner and others was forged
when neither the person who executed it, nor the person in whose favour has
raised any objection against it.
Learned APP assisted by learned counsel for the informant has
vehemently opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the Dipti Mukherjee had
no power to execute power of attorney in favour of co-accused, Kumud Kumar
Jha on 10.08.2001. It is further submitted that during enquiry, a prima facie
case has been found of forgery by the learned court. Janab Salim Saheb from
whom the complainant claims to have derived power of attorney had not lost
the said Civil Suit in Title Appeal No.112 of 2008, but it was allowed. It is
further submitted that the contention made that Ranu Priti Mukherjee had life
interest or not is subjudice in another suit. It is further submitted that the earlier
criminal cases filed by Janab Salim Saheb has already been quashed by the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The matter by and large appears to be civil
in nature.
Considering the rival submissions and the fact as discussed above, the
anticipatory bail application is allowed. Hence, in the event of his arrest or
surrender within a period of two weeks from the date of this order, the
petitioner named above 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 Court below, subject to the
conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr. P.C.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sandeep/
