Jharkhand High Court
Dinesh Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Jharkhand --- --- Opposite ... on 11 June, 2021
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 303 of 2021
---
1. Dinesh Kumar Sharma
2. Satish Kumar Sharma
3. Abhishek Kumar Sharma --- --- Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand --- --- Opposite Party
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Through: Video Conferencing
---
For the Petitioners: Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
For the State: Mr. V.S. Sahay, A.P.P
For the Informant: Mr. Vishal Kr. Tiwari, Advocate
---
07/11.06.2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. These three petitioners seek anticipatory bail in terms of Section 438 Cr.P.C in connection with Chas (M) P.S. Case No. 97/2020 for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and pending in the court of Miss. Seem Kumari Minz, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the written report which formed the basis of FIR discloses about Agreement for Sale between the Informant and Om Prakash Sharma (Accused No. 1) against consideration of Rs. 23.50 lakhs for purchase of certain lands. Om Prakash Sharma (Accused No. 1) is stated to be the Director of Pioneering Green City Builder Private Limited. The first two petitioners are his brother-in-law and the petitioner no. 3 is his son who have been implicated in the instant case. It is also alleged that they have resorted to threat of life and abuse as, according to the Informant, whenever he insisted upon execution of Sale Deed, the accused Om Prakash Sharma directed him to talk to these persons. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Agreement for Sale shows that these petitioners were nowhere party or witness to the transaction. It is further submitted that dispute at best is of civil nature which has remedy under Special Relief Act before the competent Civil Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that there is no proof of payment of the amount of Rs. 23.50 lakhs either through any digital mode or banking transaction or money receipt on the part of Informant to substantiate the veracity of the allegation against the accused persons. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that misleading statement has been made at para-13 of the counter affidavit of the State that as per para-120 of the case diary, there are criminal antecedent of 2. these petitioners in 24 cases of the same nature as that of the instant case. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to his statement made in reply to this counter affidavit at para-8 which contains a chart of all such 24 C.P. Cases containing their numbers, name of the complainant and name of the accused persons. It is submitted that in none of the complaint cases, any of the present petitioners are accused. These petitioners have got no connection with any other complaint made by any other aggrieved Informant / Complainant. As such, contention of the State that the petitioners should be denied anticipatory bail on account of having several criminal antecedent against them, is wholly misplaced and incorrect. Therefore, petitioners deserve the protection of section 438 of the Cr. P.C.
4. Learned A.P.P has stated that it has come in para-14 of the counter affidavit based upon the case diary that the main accused Om Prakash Sharma used to give Power of Attorney to his son and brother-in-laws i.e. petitioners and sometimes used to make them Director of the Company. This was his modus operandi to deceive the people. Learned A.P.P, however, is not in a position to refute the specific reply made on behalf of the petitioners that in none of the 24 complaint cases, these petitioners are accused. No other instances of criminal antecedent has either been cited in the counter affidavit of the State.
5. Learned counsel for the Informant has filed counter affidavit on 15.02.2021 and supplementary counter affidavit on 10.03.2021. Learned counsel for the Informant submits that the contention of these petitioners at paragraph-6 of the reply dated 26.02.2021 to the first counter affidavit of the Informant that none of the petitioners are Director of the Pioneering Green City Builder Private Limited is not correct, as would be evident from the Agreement enclosed to the second counter affidavit. Petitioner No. 1-Dinesh Kumar, in the capacity of the Director, has executed three Sale Deeds in favour of Sweta Sinha on 09.07.2010; Nagendra Prasad Sinha on 11.08.2010 and Janki Devi on 24.01.2011. Petitioner no. 2 & 3 Satish Kumar Sharma and Abhishek Kumar Sharma are also dealing on behalf of Om Prakash Sharma as Power of Attorney Holder which is evident from the Sale Deed executed on 21.12.2019. Learned counsel for the Informant submits that the petitioners who are known generally as the Power of Attorney Holder of the main accused Om Prakash Sharma have employed this modus operandi to cheat the innocent persons interested in purchasing the lands in such manner. Learned counsel for the Informant 3. however, is not in a position to dispute the statement of the petitioners that there is no money receipt or proof of payment through digital mode or banking transaction for an amount of Rs. 23.50 lakhs for execution of the two Agreement for Sale with the Accused No. 1 Om Prakash Sharma. Learned counsel for the Informant is also not in a position to deny that in none of these 24 complaint cases, these petitioners are accused. However, it is once again reiterated on his behalf that Om Prakash Sharma indulges in cheating the people through these petitioners who are his two brother-in-laws and his son. Therefore, they do not deserve the protection of anticipatory bail.
6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taken into account the relevant material facts borne from the records. It appears that in the instant complaint case, apart from these petitioners, one Om Prakash Sharma has been made accused no. 1 who is said to be the father of the petitioner no. 3 and brother-in-law of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2. Complaint alleges the acts of cheating and criminal breach of trust apart from forgery and criminal intimidation in the execution of two Agreements for Sale in respect of purchase of certain immovable properties, for which total sum of Rs. 23.50 lakhs was paid by the Informant. The Agreement has been executed between the accused Om Prakash Sharma and the Informant, but name of these petitioners do not appear in the agreement or as a witness to the transaction. Payment of Rs. 23.50 lakhs, as alleged in the complaint, does not contain any proof of such payment either through digital mode or banking transaction, rather allegedly all the payments were made in cash because of friendly relations between the two. Whereas Informant alleges that these petitioners enjoy general Power of Attorney of the main accused Om Prakash Sharma, as evident from certain agreements executed by them in favour of certain third party, but those agreement do not relate to the instant complaint case. Though, in the affidavit of the State it was categorically alleged that these petitioners have criminal antecedent as they are connected with 24 complaint cases, but the petitioners have in their reply through a detailed chart at para-8 specifically denied being accused in any such complaint cases. No other instances of their involvement in other criminal cases has been shown by the State or the Informant.
7. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances concerning the implication of these petitioners in the instant complaint case, this Court is of the view that these petitioners deserve to be granted the protection in terms of 4. Section 438 of the Cr. P.C. Accordingly, petitioners above named, in the event of their surrender or arrest within a period of four weeks, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each, with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of Miss. Seem Kumari Minz, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro in connection with Chas (M) P.S. Case No. 97/2020, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C.
Petitioners shall cooperate in the investigation. Petitioners and their bailors shall not change their address or mobile number without permission of the learned trial court.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) Ranjeet/