Jharkhand High Court
Shiv Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand .... Opposite ... on 4 March, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
A.B.A. No. 10560 of 2023
----
Shiv Kumar Singh .... Petitioner
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State :- Mr. P.D. Agarwal, Advocate
For the O.P.No.2 :- Mr. P.S. Dayal, Advocate
----
4/04.03.2024 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as
well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State and
the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with
Bariatu P.S. Case No. 522 of 2015, G. R. No.7278 of 2015, registered for the
offence under sections 419, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 IPC, pending in the
court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ranchi.
3. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. The FIR was registered
on the basis of direction under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The petitioner is
cooperating with the police after receiving notice under section 41A of the
Cr.P.C. and thereafter the charge sheet has also been submitted and in view
of that, the petitioner is entitled for privilege of anticipatory bail. He further
submits that for the land in question Mrs. Prema Singh, who is mother of the
informant has executed agreement in the year 1997 and it was entered into
between Prema Singh and Ramesh Padiwal to sell the land and thereafter
she has also provided power of attorney and based on that the land was
transferred to certain persons and by way of referring Annexure-4 series he
submits that receiving of the amount is there and huge amount has been
received by Prema Singh. He submits that allegation against the petitioner is
there that so far the land sold in the year 2004, the signature of informant
has not been found to be true in the power of attorney. He submits that for
cancellation of deed in question title suit is also preferred by the informant.
He submits that even based on the opinion of hand-writing expert the
privilege of anticipatory bail is a rule. He relied in the case of Rajeshbhai
Muljibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2020) 3 SCC 794. He refers to
paragraph nos.21 and 21 of the said judgment and he submits that in that
case civil suit was pending and based on that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
quashed the FIR itself. He submits that so far as signature of Prema Singh is
concerned is found to be true, however, signature of the petitioner is said to
be not true. He submits that privilege of anticipatory bail may kindly be
provided to the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel has opposed
the prayer on the ground that in the charge sheet, the material is there and
charge sheet has also been submitted.
5. The learned counsel for the informant/ O.P.No.2 submits that
the FIR was registered in the year 2015 and based on that power of attorney
is of the year 2002, the petitioner along with others have sold the land in
2004. He submits that in the charge sheet and in investigation it has come
that the informant was in Moscow from 28.11.2001 to 02.05.2003 and the
power of attorney is of the year 2002. He submits that so far the receipts
contained at Annexure-4 series is concerned that is of the year 1998 and
1999. The informant has filed Criminal Writ Petition which was disposed of
with direction to conclude the investigation, however, nothing was done by
police and thereafter second writ petition was filed by the petitioner in which
certain directions have been issued by this Court and thereafter the
investigation was complete.
6. Admittedly, the FIR was registered in the year 2015,
however, nothing was done and the informant has moved before this Court in
criminal writ petition which was disposed of with certain direction and further
nothing was done by the police and one writ petition was filed in which
direction is issued and thereafter the charge sheet has been submitted.
Further Annexure-4 series is document which suggest that those are the
documents which are money receipt of the year 1998-1999. It is further
admitted position that based on power of attorney of 2002 the land in
question was sold to another person in the year 2004. It has come in the
charge sheet that the informant was in Moscow from 28.11.2001 to
02.05.2003 and further the hand-writing expert opinion is there as contained
in Annexure-'A' in the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner wherein
it is crystal clear that so far signature of the informant in the power of
attorney is concerned, is said to be mis-matched. It is stated that in the
cases where the case of anticipatory bail is made out, the Court is very
liberal, however, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its
discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance of the principles
laid down in plethora of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is well settled
that among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while
considering the bail application whether there is any reasonable or prima
facie grounds are there that the accused has committed the offence, the
nature and gravity of the accusation, severity of punishment in the event of
conviction, danger of the accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail,
character, behaviour means position and understanding of the accused,
likelihood of the offense being repeated, reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being influenced and danger at the cost of justice being thwart on
the ground of bail. Admittedly, on the forged power of attorney the land in
question was sold which is fortified by the hand-writing expert and now a
days, this is happening very frequently so far as the State of Jharkhand is
concerned.
7. In the attending facts and circumstances, I am not inclined
to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, and hence, the prayer
for anticipatory bail of the petitioner, is, hereby, rejected. Accordingly, this
anticipatory bail application is hereby dismissed.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/
