Amiya Kumar Paul Alias Amiyo Kumar Paul and Ors Vs. The State of Jharkhand - Court Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2113 of 2015 1. Amiya Kumar Paul @ Amiyo Kumar Paul, 2. Banibrata Paul @ Bani Brata Paul.

3. Uday Shankar Paul ... ... ... ... ... ... Petitioners. Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... ... ... ... Opp. Party. ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Krishna shankar, A.P.P. For the informant : Mr. Jintendra S. Singh, Advocate. ------ 08 / 07.09.2015: Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Krishna Shankar, learned counsel for the State assisted by Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel for the informant. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 134 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 643 of 2015, registered for the offence punishable under sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations, which have been levelled in the complaint petition is against accused no.1, Tarun Kanti Ghoshal, who claiming himself to be the power of attorney holder of the petitioners sold the land for a total consideration amount of Rs. 1,01,00,000/-, and the same has been received in installments, which is the subject matter of dispute. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the entire consideration amount have been received by accused no.1, power of attorney holder. Learned counsel further submits that earlier there was a title suit, being Title Suit No. 92 of 2010, which was subsequently compromised on the basis of joint compromise petition and accordingly, a decree was passed on 16.06.2011. It has been further submitted that a memorandum of understanding was entered into between the Firm of the informant as well as the Power of Attorney Holder on 31.03.2012 and the nature and purport of the said agreement would go to show that the complainant was well aware of the fact that the land in question is itself disputed and that members of the second party i.e. the petitioners and the Power of Attorney Holder were not in a position to give possession of the entire schedule land. It has, therefore, been submitted that the plea taken by the complainant that there was an order of status quo in F.A. No. 43 of 2012, which was not brought to the knowledge of the complainant, is falsified by the said fact. It has also been submitted that the petitioners have filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed and immediately on coming to know about the entire facts they have also taken steps for revocation of the Power of Attorney granted to accused no.1, Tarun Kanti Ghoshal. Learned counsel for the State assisted by Mr. Jitendra S. Singh on the other hand has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the ill-intention of the petitioners would be evident from the fact that an order of status-quo in F.A. No. 43 of -2- 2012 had been passed on 23.03.2012 and knowing fully well about the aforesaid fact, as would appear from the memorandum of understanding entered into between the Firm of the complainant as well as the Power of Attorney Holder on 31.03.2012. It has, therefore, been submitted that the first information report was instituted on 10.02.2015 and the power of Attorney was revoked on 26.02.2015. Learned counsel for the informant further adds that revocation of Power of Attorney does not disclose that it was on account of the fact that Power Attorney Holder has duped the petitioners by claiming himself to be power of attorney holder and received the entire consideration amount, which was paid by the complainant but it was only for the personal reason, the same has been revoked. It has, therefore, been submitted that since the petitioners have suppressed the material facts by entering into an agreement with the complainant have deliberately cheated the complainant and, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to get the privilege of anticipatory bail. Taking notes of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioners have received the entire consideration amount from the power of attorney holder and, therefore, the petitioners have subjected themselves for being prosecuted. Submission advanced by both the parties suggests that the entire dispute revolves around the fact and which has also been enumerated in the written report of the informant, is that inspite of knowing the fact that an appeal being F.A. No. 43 of 2012 has been preferred against the order passed in Title Suit No. 92 of 2010 in which an order of status quo was passed on 23.03.2012, the same was never brought to the knowledge of the complainant and suppressing the said fact, memorandum of understanding was entered into just a week after the order of status quo was passed. The pendency of the First Appeal and order of the status quo and the averment made in the memorandum of understanding after order of such status quo was passed would go to show that there was an apparent dispute with regard to the land in question. Although reference of the First Appeal or the reference about the status quo has not been mentioned in so many words in the memorandum of understanding dated 31.03.2012, but the fact with respect to the dispute relating to the land in question has been taken note of as also the fact that the Power of Attorney Holder/ real owners (Petitioners) were not in a position to handover the possession of the scheduled land, in view of the existence of some disputes over the said land. In such circumstance it cannot be presumed that there has been a suppression on the part of the accused persons in claiming that the schedule land was free from all encumbrances and the same was undisputed. Moreover the petitioners have taken steps for cancellation of sale deed as well as revocation of the Power of Attorney, although the same can be construed as a subsequent action after initiation of the first information report. However, in view of what has been discussed above, I am inclined to allow this application. Accordingly, the petitioners above named, are directed to surrender in the Court below within a period of three weeks and on their so surrendering they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) -3- each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 134 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 643 of 2015, subject to the condition as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) Sharma/-