Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 2291 of 2015 --- Phool Chand Sao @ Fulchand Saw @ Phool Chand, son of Ghaman Sao, resident of Saket Vihar near D.A.V. Kapildev, Kadru, P.O. & P.S. Argora, District Ranchi … … Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Shailesh Kumar S/o Late Laxmi Nath Sahu R/o House No. 7, Shradhanand Path, Upper Bazar, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali Dist. Ranchi … … Opp. Parties --- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mr. Krishna Shankar, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Jai Shankar Tiwari, Advocate --- 13/16.12.2015 Heard Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Krishna Shankar, learned A.P.P. for the State assisted by Mr. Jai Shankar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.
2. Petitioner has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 109 of 2015 corresponding to G. R. No. 1556 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 379, 427, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation made in the First Information Report is that the informant had booked a flat in Mangal Enclave through an agreement by the Builder of Yashodhara Associates who is the petitioner in the present case and after taking possession of the flat the house hold articles were kept by the informant in the same. It has been alleged that on 22.11.2013 he received information with respect to theft in his flat for which an F.I.R. was lodged in Sadar Police Station. The Police had seized some articles in course of investigation and sealed the flat of the informant which was subsequently broken by the Builder. Allegation has also been levelled that inspite of realising money from the informant, the flat was not registered in the name of the informant and the petitioner tried to sell the flat to some other persons. It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the entire dispute is with respect to a flat which was purchased by the informant from the petitioner who is the -2- proprietor of Yashodhara Associates. It has been submitted that prior to institution of Sadar P.S. Case No. 109 of 2015 a complaint case was lodged before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Ranchi which has been registered as Complaint Case No. No. 569 of 2014. Not only this the informant had also made a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ranchi and suppressing all the facts the F.I.R. has been instituted. It has further been submitted that the possession of the flat was given to the informant for which also an agreement was entered into. Learned senior counsel while referring to the counter affidavit has submitted that there was a dispute with respect to extension of area of the flat from 950 sq. ft. to 1470 sq. ft. and in fact in one agreement the area of the flat was shown as 950 sq. ft. and in the other agreement the same was shown as 1150 sq. ft. whereas the petitioner claims the area of the flat as 1360 sq. ft. on one occasion in 1460 sq. ft. on the other. With reference to the case instituted against the petitioner, it has been submitted that in one case the land owner filed a complaint case against the petitioner in which aspersions were cast with respect to the fact that the anticipatory bail was obtained by the petitioner by deliberately suppressing the facts and producing false documents showing them as genuine. It has thus been submitted that the entire dispute is civil in nature and since the informant has chosen the appropriate forum by filing the case before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ranchi, the petitioner deserves to be granted anticipatory bail. At this, Mr. Jai Shankar Tiwary, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2, has submitted that on 23.06.2009 an agreement was executed between the petitioner as well as the informant and there was an option to purchase either flat having an area of 950 sq. ft. or 1150 sq. ft. It has been submitted that the informant had opted for the flat having an area of 1150 sq. ft. and pursuant to the same had obtained loan from the bank and the petitioner having been paid the entire amount had subsequently resiled from his earlier commitment. The learned counsel for the informant further submits that in fact the earlier agreement with respect to the 950 sq. ft. was never returned to the informant and this was deliberately done by the -3- petitioner, since the agreement was entered in the year 2009 and the value of the flat had in the meantime increased by leaps and bounds. It has been submitted that the entire act on the part of the petitioner do show the criminal intent and in such circumstance, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. From perusal of the records and the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the entire dispute seems to be with respect to a flat which had been purchased by the informant from the petitioner who is proprietor of Yashodhara Associates Limited. Even as per own saying of the informant the possession of the flat was taken and certain agreement were executed with respect to the different areas of the flat. It further appears that the informant with respect to the same subject matter had already filed a complaint case much prior to the institution of the F.I.R. and the same fact was never mentioned in the F.I.R. Moreover, for deficiency of service the informant has also filed an application before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ranchi in which also the crux of the dispute seems to be that inspite of entering into an agreement for sale of a flat comprising an area of 11.50 sq. ft. the registration of the said flat was not being done in favour of the informant. It would thus appear that there is no criminal element present in either the allegations made in the First Information Report or the surrounding circumstances enumerated above. In such circumstances, the petitioner, named above, is directed to surrender in the court below within three weeks from today and on such surrender, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 109 of 2015 corresponding to G. R. No. 1556 of 2015, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (R. Mukhopadhyay, J.) Umesh/-