Anish Giri @ Anish Kumar Giri vs The State Of Jharkhand & Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 3733 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
               A.B.A. No. 8919 of 2022
                           ------

       Anish Giri @ Anish Kumar Giri     ...                      Petitioner
                                 Versus
       The State of Jharkhand & Anr.     ...                  Opposite Parties
                                  ------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

       For the Petitioner        : Mr. Tejo Mistry, Advocate
       For the State             : Mr. Saket Kumar, Addl. P.P.
       For the O.P. No.2         : Mr. Deeapk Kr. Sinha, Advocate
                                       ------
       Order No.06 Dated- 05.10.2023

            Heard the parties.

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No.64 of 2022 registered under sections 406/ 420/504/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code.

The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed forgery by creating a false document in the shape of sale deed dated 17.08.2020 by reciting therein that Ramanand Giri died leaving behind his only son Akhilesh Kumar Giri though the petitioner knows pretty well that besides Akhilesh Kumar Giri, the informant- Kamlesh Kumar Giri is also the son of Ramanand Giri and by forgery has transferred the land of the complainant to the purchaser of the said sale deed dated 17.08.2020 namely Padma Sahu. It is next submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 23.11.2017 in Cr.M.P. No. 868 of 2010, that therein the coordinate Bench relying upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another, reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 has observed that mere execution of a sale deed by claiming that the property being sold was the executant's property did not amount to commission of offence punishable under Section 467/471 of the Indian Penal Code. It is next submitted that the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the facts of this case is different from the facts of Mohammed Ibrahim and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another (supra); as in this case, there is specific allegation against the petitioner of creating a false document in the shape of the sale deed dated 17.08.2020 executed by the petitioner in favour of Padma Sahu mentioning that Ramanand Giri has only one son namely Akhilesh Kumar Giri though the petitioner knows pretty well that besides Akhilesh Kumar Giri, the informant- Kamlesh Kumar Giri is also the son of Ramanand Giri. It is next submitted that keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of committing forgery by creating a false document in the shape of the sale deed dated 17.08.2020 and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of this case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above named petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu/Gunjan-