Minakshi Singhania vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 65 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Minakshi Singhania vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 May, 2025

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                         ( 2024:JHHC:45118 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    A.B.A. No.5060 of 2024
                                 ------

1. Minakshi Singhania, aged about 50 years, wife of Late Bimal Kumar Singhania, resident Flat No.A/403 Satya Enclave, Lake Avenue, Kanke Road, P.O. Kanke, P.S. Gonda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.

2. Swati Singhania, aged about 49 years, wife of Jay Prakash Singhania, resident of Flat A/503, Satya Enclave, Lake Avenue, Kanke Road, P.O. Kanke, P.S. Gonda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.

.... .... .... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Sushanta Kumar Ghosh, aged about 65 years, Son of Jagadish Chandra Ghosh, resident of Holding No.2231/C7 & C8, Choudhry Bagan, Deepatoli, Behind Surendra Nath Centenary School, P.O. & P.S. Bariatu, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand.

.... .... .... Opposite Parties

With

------

Jai Prakash Singhania, aged about 57 years, son of Prahalad Rai Singhania, resident of Flat A/503, Satya Enclave, Lake Avenue, Kanke Road, P.O. Kanke, P.S. Gonda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.

.... .... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Parties

------

CORAM       : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
                                     ------
      For the Petitioners      : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
      For the State            : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P.
      For the OP2              : Mr. B.M. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate
                               : Mrs. Nutan Kumari Sharma, Advocate
                                     ------
      Order No.08 Dated- 02/05/2025
            1. Heard the parties.

2. Since both these anticipatory bail applications have been filed with the same prayer, hence, these anticipatory bail applications are disposed of by this common order.

3. Apprehending their arrest in connection with Pithoria P.S. Case No.109 of 2023 instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 427, 452, 506, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner no.1 has purchased a plot of land belonging to the brother of the informant namely Prashant Kumar Ghosh on the basis of the registered power of attorney executed by Prashant Kumar Ghosh in favor of Nirmal Kumar Sharma and Nirmal Kumar Sharma is the executant of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner no.1, in capacity of power-of-attorney holder of Prashant Kumar Ghosh. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is alleged by the informant in the FIR, that the husband of the petitioner no.1 namely Bimal Kumar Singhania, who is since deceased, approached the informant and his brother to sell the concerned land to him, failing which threatened the informant party, of dire consequences. It is also alleged that consequent upon execution of the said sale deed in favor of the petitioner no.1, the petitioners have installed concrete pillars and fence around the concerned plot of land, with barbed wire. It is further alleged that the purported power of attorney executed by Prashant Kumar Ghosh in favor of Nirmal Kumar Sharma is a forged document as Prashant Kumar Ghosh himself has not executed the said power of attorney rather Sameer Kumar Ghosh impersonated as Prashant Kumar Ghosh in executing the power of attorney in favor of Nirmal Kumar Sharma. It is next submitted that the petitioner no.1 is the beneficiary of the sale deed purportedly executed by way of cheating by Nirmal Kumar Sharma and the petitioner no.2 of A.B.A. No.5060 of 2024 and the sole petitioner of A.B.A. No.5277 of 2024 are in no way concerned nor has any role in the said execution of the sale deed by the Nirmal Kumar Sharma as a power of attorney holder of Prashant Kumar Ghosh. It is next submitted that the said Nirmal Kumar Sharma has cheated the petitioner no.1 and for that reason, the husband of the petitioner no.1 of A.B.A. No.5060 of 2024, during his lifetime lodged Kotwali P.S. Case No.176 of 2023. It is further submitted that the petitioner no.1 has also intimated the act of forgery committed by the said Nirmal Kumar Sharma to the District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi, the copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No.5 at page no.108 of A.B.A. No.5060 of 2024. It is next submitted that if Nirmal Kumar Sharma is not the genuine power of attorney holder of Prashant Kumar Ghosh, then no title in respect of the land concerned will obviously accrue to the petitioner no.1 by execution of the said sale deed and the petitioner no.1 has requested from annulment of the said sale deed after coming to know about the allegations that the Prashant Kumar Ghosh has not executed the power of attorney in favor of Nirmal Kumar Sharma. It is next submitted that the dispute between the parties is at best a civil dispute. It is lastly submitted that the petitioners undertake to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

5. Learned Spl. P.P appearing for the State and learned senior counsel for the opposite party no.2 of A.B.A. No.5060 of 2024 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submit that the petitioners of A.B.A. No.5060 of 2024 have criminally conspired along with the co-accused namely Bimal Kumar Singhania and Jai Prakash Singhania who is the petitioner of A.B.A. No.5277 of 2024 to illegally grab the land of the brother of the informant. It is next submitted that the petitioners have conspired with Sameer Kumar Bose in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy, to impersonate as Prashant Kumar Ghosh and the identifying witness of the said general power of attorney holder namely Praveen Kumar Dey has also identified an impersonator. It is next submitted by the learned Spl.P.P. and the learned senior counsel for the opposite party no.2 of A.B.A. No.5060 of 2024 that keeping in view of the gravity of the offence, the Director General of Police, Jharkhand directed that the investigation of the case be handed over to the CID on 11.08.2023 but it is fairly submitted that investigation is still going on and the petitioners have complied with the notice issued to them under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. and during this investigation of more than 1 and half years, police has never thought it proper to take the petitioners to custody. It is lastly submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners, be rejected.

6. Having heard the submission made at the bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the main allegation of impersonation is in respect of this registered power of attorney executed in favour of Nirmal Kumar Sharma. None of the petitioners were party to the said registered power-of-attorney purportedly executed by Prashant Kumar Ghosh and the petitioners came into picture only when Nirmal Kumar Sharma executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner no.1, so in view of the ratio of the judgment of the 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, the petitioners are the aggrieved persons and the petitioners of A.B.A. No.5060 of 2024 are females and it appears that the investigation is going on for more than one and half years and the petitioners are cooperating with the investigation of the case.

7. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

8. Considering the submissions of learned counsels and the facts and circumstances stated above, I am inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to surrender in the Court below within six weeks from today and in the event of their arrest or surrendering, they will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M., Ranchi in connection with Pithoria P.S. Case No.109 of 2023 with the condition that they will co- operate with the investigation of the case and appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed by him and furnish their mobile numbers and photocopy of the Aadhar Cards with an undertaking that they will not change their mobile numbers during the pendency of the case and further conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) AFR-Abhiraj/