Jharkhand High Court
Bandana Banerjee vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 May, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.3915 of 2023
------
Bandana Banerjee ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Dr. Sashikant Dubey @ Shashi Kant Dubey
... Opposite Parties
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Vandana Bharti, Addl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
------
Order No:-05 Dated:-10-05-2024
Heard the parties.
This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner with
a prayer to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party No.2 by
the trial court in terms of order dated 17.10.2023 passed in A.B.A. No.5354 of
2023 passed by this Court.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the brief
facts of the case is that vide order dated 17.10.2023 passed in A.B.A. No.5354 of
2023 by this Court, the opposite party No.2 was given the privileges of
anticipatory bail by the trial court inter alia on the condition that the if the
opposite party No.2 pays Rs.20,00,000/- to the petitioner within three months
from the date of the said order, the petitioner shall execute the sale-deed in
favour of the opposite party No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that as per the oral agreement with respect to the sale of the land in
question, the petitioner has paid Rs.20,00,000/- towards full and final
consideration amount to the opposite party No.2 and the petitioner has already
paid Rs.20,00,000/-. The petitioner after receiving of the said amount of
Rs.20,00,000/- from the opposite party No.2 failed to execute the sale-deed. It
is next submitted that the land in question is mortgaged with the State Bank of
India. Hence, it is submitted that the bail granted to the opposite party No.2 by
the trial court in terms of the order dated 17.10.2023 passed in A.B.A. No.5354
of 2023 passed by this Court, be cancelled.
Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the
opposite party No.2 vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner to cancel
the bail granted to the opposite party No.2 by the trial court in terms of the
order dated 17.10.2023 passed in A.B.A. No.5354 of 2023 by this Court. Learned
counsel for the opposite party No.2 submits that the petitioner has not paid
Rs.20,00,000/- to the opposite party No.2 and since the condition precedent for
executing the sale-deed, as mentioned in the said anticipatory bail order, was
that the petitioner has to pay Rs.20,00,000/- and the same has not yet been paid,
the opposite party No.2 is under no obligation to execute the sale-deed and
violation of any terms and conditions, has not been made by the opposite party
No.2. It is next submitted that since full consideration amount was
Rs.40,00,000/- of the land in question and the same has not been paid otherwise
also the opposite party No.2 is under no obligation to execute the sale-deed.
The land in question of the opposite party No.2 is mortgaged with the State
Bank of India with an loan amount of Rs.17,00,000/- out of which
Rs.11,00,000/- has been paid in the bank and had the petitioner paid the rest
amount of Rs.20,00,000/-, the opposite party No.2 could have got the property
released from the bank by paying the rest outstanding amount of Rs.11,00,000/-
and there would not have been any difficulty in executing the sale-deed in
favour of the petitioner. Hence, there is no justifiable reason to cancel the bail
granted to the opposite party No.2. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2
relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Raghubir Singh & Others vs. State of Bihar reported in (1986) 4 SCC 481 and
Dolat Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 SCC 341, and
submits that the grounds for cancellation of bail are:-
i) interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration
of justice,
ii) evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice,
iii) abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner,
iv) possibility of the accused absconding,
v) likelihood of misuse of bail,
vi) likelihood of the accused of tampering with the evidence of witness
but there is no allegation against the opposite party No.2 of doing such act, did
or thing. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be
dismissed.
Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully
going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention
here that there is no allegation against the opposite party No.2 of having done
any act, deed or thing which will make him liable for cancellation of his bail as
has been enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Raghubir Singh & Others vs. State of Bihar (supra) and Dolat Ram & Others
vs. State of Haryana (supra) and has already been mentioned in the foregoing
paragraphs of this judgment. The only allegation made against the opposite
party No.2 is that he has not executed the sale-deed but the condition precedent
in the order itself for execution of the sale deed, undisputedly is that the
petitioner has to first pay Rs.20,00,000/- to the opposite party No.2 which
undisputedly the petitioner has not paid. Under such circumstances, this Court
is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to cancel the bail
granted to the opposite party No.2 by the trial court in terms of the order dated
17.10.2023 passed in A.B.A. No.5354 of 2023 passed by this Court.
Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.
This criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of accordingly.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Animesh-Saroj/
