Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pradeep Kumar Khare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 June, 2020
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
Bench: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1 CRA-2796-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-2796-2020
(PRADEEP KUMAR KHARE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 24-06-2020
Shri R.S. Patel, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Prakash Gupta, learned P.L. for the respondent No.1/State.
None for the respondent No.2, despite compliance of Section 15(A)(iii) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The proceeding convened through video conferencing.
Heard with the aid of case diary.
This appeal has been filed under Section 14 (A) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 07/03/2020 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Tikamgarh, whereby learned Special Judge rejected the bail application filed by the appellant Pradeep Kumar Khare under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. to get anticipatory bail in Crime No.448/2017 registered at Police Station Prithvipur, District Tikamgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 477-A, 409 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, who apprehends his arrest in the crime.
As per prosecution case on 13/02/2017 complainant Munnalal lodged a written report at Police Station Prithvipur, District Tikamgarh averring that in the year 1968-69, the land measuring 2.900 hectares situated at village Khiston was allotted by the Government to his father Durgai on lease. Thereafter, his father Durgai cultivated the said land till the year 1983 and after his death, he and his brother Summa cultivated that land. In the year 1985, they sold that land to co-accused Alam Kachhi, Kallu Kachhi, Harkishan Kachi, Munna Kachhi, Lalle Kachhi, Jamuna Kachhi, Kashiram Kachhi, Mulu Kachhi, Dhanu Kachhi, Basante Kachhi, Ramsewak, Puni Kachhi, Ramphe Kachhi, Gorelal Kachhi and Chandilal Kachhi by registered sale deed dated 23/06/1985. Thereafter, they got their names mutated on that land vide order dated 03/03/1985. But, the then, Collector set aside that mutation order vide Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 25/06/2020 12:44:27 2 CRA-2796-2020 order dated 24/03/1986. Thereafter, the land was again mutated in the names of complainant Munnalal and his brother Summa. In the year 2006, abovementioned co-accused Alam Kachhi and others again filed an application for mutation of the said land in their names on the basis of said sale deed. On that application, in the year 2006 co-accused Dhirendra Singh the then Nayab Tehsildar, Prathvipur on the report of applicant Pradeep Kumar Khare the then Patwari wrongly mutated that land in the names of co- accused Alam Kachhi and others. Thus, appellant in connivance with other co-accused committed fraud with the complainant. On that Police registered Crime No.448/2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 477-A, 409 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the appellant and other co-accused persons. Appellant filed an application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court for grant of anticipatory bail, which was rejected, against which present appeal has been filed.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the matter. He further submitted that the mutation order was passed by the co-accused Dhirendra Singh, the then Nayab Tehsildar, not by the applicant. Hence, no offence is made out against the appellant. Even, the mutation order passed by the co-accused Dhirendra Singh has also been set aside by the Dy. Collector, Prathvipur vide order dated 08/03/2018. The appellant is a Government servant and is ready to cooperate in the investigation and trial. On the strength of aforesaid, learned counsel prayed for grant of the anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that the sale deed on the basis of which co-accused Dhirendra Singh passed mutation order in favour of co-accused Alam Kachhi & others in the year 2006, was executed in the year 1985. The land which was mutated by the co- accused Dhirendra Singh in favour of co-accused Alam Kachhi and others was the Government land, which was given to the father of complainant Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 25/06/2020 12:44:27 3 CRA-2796-2020 Durgai on lease who belonged to scheduled caste community. According to the provisions of Section 165 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, the said land could not be sold by the lease holder without the permission of the Collector. Appellant knowing the fact that the seller was the leaseholder not the owner of the land and belongs to scheduled caste community to whom the land was given on lease, gave the report in favour of co-accused Alam Kachhi & others and co-accused Dhirendra Singh passed mutation order in favour of co-accused Alam Kachhi and others, which clearly shows that the co-accused Dhirendra Singh, the then Nayab Tehsildar in connivance with appellant and Alam Kachhi & others mutated said land in favour of Alam Kachhi and others. So, the appellant should not be released on anticipatory bail.
In the notice which was published by the order of co-accused Dhirendra Singh, it is mentioned that the complainant who belongs to scheduled caste community was the leaseholder of the land. This prima facie shows that at the time of giving the report appellant had known the fact that the complainant who sold the land is a member of scheduled caste community and lease holder of the land. Even then applicant gave the report in favour of co-accused Alam Kachhi and others against the provision of Section 165 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. So, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the contention of learned counsel of the State/respondent no.1, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Hence appeal is rejected.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE as Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 25/06/2020 12:44:27