Jharkhand High Court
Niranjan Kumar Jha vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite ... on 3 May, 2024
Author: Ratnaker Bhengra
Bench: Ratnaker Bhengra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction)
BA No. 581 of 2024
Niranjan Kumar Jha ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Rashidi, Advocate;
Md. Azam, Advocate;
Ms. Aulia Begam, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Shweta Singh, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Sunil Singh, Advocate
--------
rd
Order No.08/Dated: 3 May, 2024
When the matter is called out, the learned counsels for the
parties have appeared.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that allegation is
regarding Rs. 20 lakh which has been made issue here. The learned counsel
has submitted that money has been handed over to the Principal who is the
land owner. The learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner was
operating under general power of attorney which was registered and he has
right to represent the same before the Registrar and in this way he is earning
his livelihood and the petitioner has also annexed the sale deed. The learned
counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that after registration of sale
deed, opposite party no.2 had applied for mutation which was also done after
compliance of all rules and procedure and, thereafter, jamabandi was also
done. The learned counsel thereafter stated that when opposite party no.2
visited the land then other persons objected. The opposite party no.2 has not
applied for demarcation of land and in-spite of not taking steps for
demarcation of the land as per khatiyan or sale-deed, he is making allegation
that false sale-deed was executed. He has said that the Principal is fully
responsible for the loss suffered by the informant because the petitioner was
operating on the trust of the Principal and carrying out his livelihood as per
the registered power of attorney. The petitioner is in custody since 2.12.2023.
Charge-sheet has also been filed and cognizance has been taken and there is
no chance of tampering with the evidence whatsoever.
He has further stated that he has filed supplementary affidavit dated
30.4.2024 showing that out of ten criminal antecedents, the petitioner is on
bail in two of the cases and eight cases are pending and in another four cases
he has been acquitted. The learned counsel also stated that only on the basis
of antecedents bail may not be refused and he has also relied upon a
judgment passed in a case of Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another (2020)11 SCC 648. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that opposite party no.2 has not been able to make out a case under
section 406 or 420 of the IPC. He has further submitted that it is a matter of
civil dispute and for which criminal case should not have been filed. He has
further stated that Annexure -2 series to his petition amply makes it clear that
the Principal has received the money involved and, therefore, no case is made
out against this petitioner. He has further stated that Amin cannot be the final
authority.
The learned counsel for the informant has stated that paragraph
no. 109 of the case diary shows criminal antecedents against this petitioner.
The petitioner has got 39 criminal antecedents. The petitioner has executed
false sale deed in favour of the informant on 31.7.2018 and received
consideration amount through cheques. He has further stated that the learned
court below has also taken cognizance against the petitioner as he has also
been convicted in CP Case No. 3619 of 2018 by the learned court below
wherein the petitioner has sold the same land fraudulently to one another
person (Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit). He has also stated that
Annexure-C to the counter-affidavit also shows that cognizance has been
taken in CP Case No. 392 of 2021 and as per Annexure-D cognizance has
also been taken in CP case No. 800 of 2018 against this petitioner for the
same offence. The learned counsel has further stated that Annexure-E series
to the counter-affidavit indicates cognizance in CP Case Nos. 266 of 2023
and 267 of 2023. The learned counsel has further stated that anticipatory bail
application of the petitioner was earlier rejected by a coordinate bench of this
court vide order dated 10.2.2023 passed in ABA No. 9529 of 2022
(Annexure-E series). He has also filed a rejoinder to the counter-affidavit
showing that there is discrepancy in plot no. 224 and plot no. 238 and says
that this discrepancy is the result of the fraud committed by this petitioner
and as per report of the Amin the complainant has not received the possession
of the land and, thereafter, petitioner was arrested on 2.12.2023 and,
therefore, he may not be released on bail.
Having heard learned counsels for the parties and in the facts and
circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail in
connection with Bankmore (Bhuli OP) PS Case No. 106 of 2022.
Accordingly, BA No. 581 of 2024 is rejected, at this stage.
However, the learned court below is directed to expedite the
trial.
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
KNR
