Chattisgarh High Court
Binod Kumar Gupta vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 November, 2022
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 1099 of 2022
Binod Kumar Gupta S/o Late Shri Shivshankar Prasad Gupta, Aged
About 55 Years, R/o Babuganj Old, G.T. Road, Ward No. 35, Dehari,
District - Rohtas (Bihar) Present Residence of Near Laxmi Medical
Pachpedinaka Raupur, P.S. Tikrapara, Tahsil and District - Raipur (C.G.)
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station
- Tikrapara, District - Raipur (C.G.)
---- Non-applicant
For Applicant - Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State - Shri Sudeep Verma, Deputy Govt. Advocate.
Shri N.K. Malaviaya, Advocate for the objector/complainant.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
15-11-2022
1.Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.420/2022, registered at Police Station - Tikrapara, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh for offence punishable under Section 420, 506/34 of the IPC the applicant has preferred this first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. before this Court for grant of anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, complainant Nishant Kumar Gupta and Arun Gupta entered into an agreement to sell the plot situated at Kamal Vihar, Sector 6 Plot B-81 area admeasuring 445 square meter on 13-07-2018 and Rs.45,00,000/- was advanced by the complainant to Arun Kumar Gupta. On 18-04-2021 before execution of sale deed Arun Gupta died. Astha Gupta is daughter of Arun Gupta, at present who is pursuing her studies in England. A power of attorney has been executed in favour of the present applicant by Astha Gupta for certain properties. The allegation against present applicant is that by misusing the power of -2- attorney application for mutation has been moved on behalf of Astha Gupta before the revenue officials of RDA. On such complaint police registered offence under Section 420 and 506/34 of the IPC against the present applicant, Astha Gupta and Rohit Kumar.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after death of her father Astha Gupta being legal heir, she is entitled to get recorded her name in the revenue records. The power of attorney was given by Astha Gupta to the present applicant and by virtue of the power of attorney the application of mutation was moved before the revenue authority of RDA to record name of Astha Gupta in the revenue records. He further submits that he has not committed any cheating with the complainant and he prays for grant of anticipatory bail. He further submits that vide order dated 03-08-2022 Ad-interim anticipatory bail has already been granted to him.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the objector submits that the applicant misusing the power of attorney has moved an application before the revenue authority for mutation. The power of attorney does not include the plot which is subject matter. The notice sent by the complainant was replied by the present applicant and the same has not been rebutted by Astha Gupta.
5. Learned counsel for the State submits that from the FIR and the statement of the witnesses, it appears that the present applicant has cheated the complainant and therefore, he is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
-3-
7. From the case diary, it appears that an agreement was entered between Nishant Kumar Gupta, complainant and Arun Gupta on 18-03- 2020 and Rs.45,00,000/- was advanced in lieu of the agreement to sell. Before execution of the sale deed Arun Gupta died on 18-04-2021. It is not in dispute that daughter of Aurn Gupta, namely, Astha Gupta is pursuing her studies in England. The power of attorney was given to the present applicant for certain plots, but the plot involved in the case situated at Kamal Vihar, Sector 6 Plot B-81 admeasuring 445 square feet is not part of the power of attorney. From the contents of the FIR it appears that the applicant has moved the application on the basis of the power of attorney before the revenue officials of the RDA for mutation of the above plot in favour of Astha Gupta and thus, he has committed cheating. It is also apparent from the record that reply of the notice was sent to the complainant by the present applicant and the same has not been denied by Astha Gupta. Considering the fact that being legal heir of Arun Gupta after his death the property would be recorded in the name of Astha Gupta, therefore, there is no cheating apparent on the face of the record and the application for mutation appears to be bonafide, further, sending reply to a notice cannot be termed as cheating. Considering the above aspects of the matter and further considering that the applicant has been granted Ad-interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 03-08-2022 I am inclined to allow this application.
8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting officer, he shall be released on bail, on following conditions:-
-4-
(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation before the investigating officer as and when required;
(ii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) that the applicant shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and
(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Aadil