Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Jharkhand High Court

Birju Mistri And Ors vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 July, 2014

Author: Shree Chandrashekhar

Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                A.B.A. No. 3965 of 2013

      1. Birju Mistri @ Birjhu Mistry
      2. Kalawati Devi
      3. Prithwi Mistri                        ...    ...  Petitioners
                              Versus
      1. The State of Jharkhand
      2. Saryu Mistri                          ...    ... Opposite Parties

   CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

      For the Petitioners         : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate
      For the State               : Mrs. Lily Sahay, A.P.P.
      For the O.P. No. 2          : Mr. Manoj Kumar No. 2, Advocate
                                 ­­­­­

11/15.07.2014

  Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties  and perused the documents on record. 

The   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   applicants  submits   that   the   applicants   are   apprehending   their   arrest   in  connection   with   Manjhiaon   P.S.   Case   No.   49   of   2012  corresponding to G.R. No. 413 of 2012 registered under Sections  420/120B of the Indian Penal Code.  

The   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   applicants  submits   that   on   an   allegation   that   the   applicant   no.   1   has  executed   a   sale­deed   in   favour   of   his   daughter­in­law   with  respect to the land belonging to the complainant, the brother of  the applicant no. 1 has filed a complaint case which was referred  to   the   police   and   therefore,   a   first   information   report   being  Manjhiaon   P.S.   Case   No.   49   of   2012   dated   12.03.2012   was  registered.   After   the   investigation,   the   police   submitted   final  form and on the protest petition submitted by the complainant,  the learned trial court has taken cognizance of the offence and  issued summons to the accused persons. 

 The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party  no. 2 submits that the applicant no. 1 in conspiracy with other  applicants executed the sale­deed of a property which does not  belong   to  them  and  thus,  they  have   committed  offence   under  Section 468 I.P.C. 

The learned A.P.P. appearing for the State opposes the  prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

The learned counsel for the applicants submits that  the   complainant   has   adequate   civil   remedy   inasmuch   as,   the  complainant can file a suit in the trial court for cancellation of  the   sale­deed   allegedly   executed   by   the   applicant   no.   1.   It   is  further submitted that no offence as alleged has been committed  by the applicants. On the face of the allegations, it would appear  that the applicants have not forged any valuable security. 

In   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case,   in   the  event of arrest of the applicants or if they  surrender before the  trial   court   within   a   period   of   four   weeks   from   today,   the  applicants   namely,   Birju   Mistri   @   Birjhu   Mistry,   Kalawati   Devi  and  Prithwi Mistri  would be released on bail on furnishing bail  bond of Rs. 10,000/­ (ten thousand) each with two sureties of  the   like   amount   each   to   the   satisfaction   of   the   learned   Civil  Judge   (Junior   division)­   VII,   Garhwa   in   connection   with  Manjhiaon P.S. Case No. 49 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No.  413 of 2012. 

Let   a   copy   of   this   order   be   sent   through   FAX   on  depositing the cost by the applicants.

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Manish