Punjab-Haryana High Court
Abhimanyu Sharma vs State Of Haryana on 22 October, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138563
CRM-41664-2024 in/and 1
CRM-M-40493-2024
101+129
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-41664-2024 in/and
CRM-M-40493-2024
Date of decision: 22.10.2024
Abhimanyu Sharma ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI
Present: Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Akun Sheemar, Advocate
for the complainant.
****
AMARJOT BHATTI, J.
CRM-41664-2024
This is an application for placing on record sale deed,
jamabandi and mutation Annexure R-C/1 to Annexure R-C/3 respectively.
Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the
complainant suffered no objection if present application is allowed.
For the reasons mentioned in the application as well as no
objection by aforesaid counsels, same is allowed and the accompanied
documents sale deed, jamabandi and mutation Annexure R-C/1 to
Annexure R-C/3 respectively are taken on record, subject to all just
exceptions.
Main case
Petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of BNSS
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138563
CRM-M-40493-2024
for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.400, dated 21.09.2023, under
Sections 420, 406, 447 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Gandhi
Nagar, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.
2. As per facts of the case, written complaint is filed by
complainant Ravikant against Kamiya Sharma and others alleging that
Ram Bachan Singh father of complainant was owner of plot No.79
measuring 200 sq. yards situated in village Kansapur, Geeta Colony
Yamuna Nagar by virtue of sale deed dated 04.07.1972. Mutation no 2814
was sanctioned in favour of his father. His father expired on 11.11.2013.
Present petitioner along with others are the legal heirs who have inherited
the property left behind by his father. Land underneath Geeta Colony was
earlier agricultural land and the owners of the land carved out plots and
sold the same to different persons. Streets and parks are still in the name of
original owners. Taking undue advantage thereof, accused No.1 and 2 in
collusion with accused No.3 to 5 executed sale deed dated 14.06.2023 with
an intention to grab the property and thereafter with the help of Abhishek
Moudgil who is a Municipal Councilor got issued ID of said property in
favour of purchaser i.e. accused No.1 and 2 who are wives of accused No.6
and 7. Ultimately, matter was reported to the police and present FIR was
registered.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that allegations
levelled against him are false. Kamni Sharma wife of petitioner and Neeru
wife of his brother are bona fide purchasers of the plot vide sale deed dated
14.06.2023. Mutation is sanctioned in their favour and the ID of property is
also issued. Kamni Sharma and Neeru had purchased this property from
Bhupinder Singh who is having a judgment and decree dated 06.08.2011 in
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138563
CRM-M-40493-2024
his favour. His name is duly incorporated in the revenue record. Matter in
controversy is civil in nature. Present petitioner is falsely involved. He is
ready to join the investigation, therefore his anticipatory bail application
may be allowed.
3. Bail application is opposed by learned counsel representing
State. Detailed status report has been filed. Facts narrated in the FIR are
confirmed. During investigation, the investigating officer has collected the
record. One of the accused has been arrested whereas other accused are yet
to be arrested. Considering the nature of allegations, anticipatory bail
application deserves dismissal.
4. I have considered the arguments and have gone through the
record along with the bail application. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has placed on record copy of the jamabandi for the year 2021-2022 which
shows that khasra No. 31//21/1, ,measuring 4 kanals 13 marlas gair
mumkin plot is owned by several co-sharers including Ram Bachan Singh
and Bhupinder Singh.
5. As per revenue record, property is joint. It is not disputed that
several plots have been carved out and sold to different persons. The
complainant as well as the accused are claiming sale deeds in their favour.
During investigation, the investigating agency has collected various sale
deeds, revenue record. Entire case is based on documents. Nothing is to be
recovered from the present petitioner. He is ready to join the investigation.
6. Considering the matter in controversy, therefore, anticipatory
bail petition filed by petitioner - Ahimanyu Shama is allowed. He be not
arrested. In case of his arrest, he be released on bail to the satisfaction of
Arresting/ Investigating Officer concerned, subject to condition that
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138563
CRM-M-40493-2024
petitioner will join the investigation as and when required. He will not
tamper with or interfere with investigation and will not leave country
without prior permission as provided under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
7. Petition is accordingly disposed of.
8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of
accordingly as well.
(AMARJOT BHATTI)
JUDGE
22.10.2024
monika
1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes /No
2. Whether reportable : Yes /No
4 of 4
