Gopal Krishna Mattoo @ Gopal Kirshna ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 1816 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Gopal Krishna Mattoo @ Gopal Kirshna ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 January, 2025

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
               A.B.A. No. 2264 of 2024
                           ------

Gopal Krishna Mattoo @ Gopal Kirshna Matoo @ Gopal Krisna Mottoo, aged about 77 years, son of Late Jiyalal Mattoo @ Jiya Lal Mattoo, Resident of Main Gate Maithon, P.O. - Maithon, P.S. -Chirkunda, District -Dhanbad.

                                         ...          Petitioner
                                 Versus
       1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Sunil Baran Saha, Son of Late Nepal Chand Saha, Deputy General Manager (Admn.) Damodar Valley Corporation, P.O. -Maithon, P.S. -Chirkunda, District -Dhanbad.

                                         ...         Opposite Parties
                                  ------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate : Mr. Ayush Deb, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, Addl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate

------

Order No.08 Dated- 20.01.2025

Heard the parties.

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Protest- cum-Complaint Case No.1683 of 2011 registered under sections 420/467/468/471/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner sold the land of D.V.C. to the co-accused persons. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is next submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Md. Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 that therein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down the law that the person who has allegedly been cheated by being sold the land of which the vendor is not the owner, can raise grievance against such fake sale deed but in this case admittedly, the sale deed was not executed in favour of the informant. It is then submitted that there is no illegality in the sale deed executed by the petitioner as the land in respect of which the petitioner has executed the sale deed belongs to the petitioner. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case. 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 opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the above named petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of this order, he 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 Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Dhanbad, in connection with Protest-cum-Complaint Case No.1683 of 2011 with the condition that the petitioner will cooperate with the trial of the case subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

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