Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pannalal Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 November, 2017
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-17524-2017
sh
(PANNALAL MISHRA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
e
2
ad
Jabalpur, Dated : 01-11-2017
Shri H.S. Dubey Senior Advocate with Shri Geet Sukhani,
Pr
counsel for the petitioner Pannalal Mishra in
a
M.Cr.C.No.17524/2017.
hy
Shri L.P. Singh, counsel for the petitioner Triveni Prasad
ad
Kewat in M.Cr.C.No.18441/2017.
Shri B.P. Pandey, Government Advocate for the
M
respondent/State.
of Since both miscellaneous criminal cases have arisen out of same crime number, they have been analogously rt heard and are being disposed of by this common order. ou Heard on these first applications for bail under Section C 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of h the petitioners Pannalal Mishra and Triveni Prasad ig Kewat in crime no. 359/2017 registered by P.S.- H Hanumana, District-Rewa under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 465, 466 and 120-B of the IPC. As per the prosecution case, on 26.09.2017, petitioner Pannalal Mishra, who was seller, petitioner Triveni Prasad Kewat, who was buyer and co-accused persons Bhola Prasad Tiwari and Surya Pratap Dwivedi approached Sub-Registrar, Tehsil, Hanumanan for execution of a Registry of Survey No.736/1 ad-measuring 0.186 hectare of village, Bhuari. At that time, Nayab Tehsildar, Mudrika Prasad, Advocate Shri Bhavani Shankar and Akhilesh Mishra filed a written application sh informing that Rin Pustika, which has been filed for execution of sale deed by petitioner Pannalal is forged.
e When the Rin Pustika filed by petitioner Pannalal was ad compared with the revenue record, it was found that Pr 0.103 hectare of land comprised in Survey No.736/1 is in the name of his brother Harivansh Prasad Mishra and a hy remaining 0.093 hectare is in the name of petitioner Pannalal. The signature and seal of Tehsildar on the Rin ad Pustika was also found to have been forged. On enquiry, M petitioner Pannalal told that aforesaid Rin Pustika was got prepared by co-accused Surya Prasad Dwivedi, who of had charged Rs.3,000/- for the same.
rt Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that co-owner ou Harivansh Prasad is brother of petitioner Pannalal. He expired on 21.01.2017; however, the name of Legal C Representatives of Pannalal was not mutated upon the h land in revenue records. The petitioner has filed an ig affidavit of Sita Devi, widow of Harivansh Prasad Mishra H and his sons stating that Pannalal is entitled to use the land in any manner, he deems fit and they have no objection if the land is sold by Pannalal. It has further been submitted that the Rin Pustika was not forged by petitioner Pannalal but was forged by co-accused Surya Pratap Dwivedi and no loss in the transaction has occurred to anyone. Petitioner is 70 years old. He had donated his kidney to his son, who has died. The petitioner Pannalal has been in custody since 26.09.2017. Therefore, it has been prayed that the sh petitioner be released on bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner Triveni Prasad has e stated that the petitioner was not involved in any ad forgery. The memorandum under Section 27 of the Pr Evidence Act, is not admissible because nothing was recovered pursuant thereto. He was a purchaser of the a hy land and in fact it was petitioner Triveni Prasad, who stood to lose it the Registry had been executed, ad petitioner Triveni Prasad has been in custody since M 26.09.2017. Therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner Triveni Prasad be released on bail.
of Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State rt on the other hand has opposed the application for bail ou filed on both of the petitioners. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case C in their entirety, particularly the facts that even though h the legal representatives of Harivansh Rai had no ig objection to transfer of his share, there was no H justification for forgery of revenue documents, as also the fact that Surya Pratap Dwivedi would forged documents only at the behest of petitioner Pannalal, in the opinion of this Court, petitioner Pannalal does not deserve to be released on bail at this stage. Consequently, these first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Pannalal is dismissed. He shall be free to renew the payer at the later stage of the trial.
sh So far as the petitioner Triveni Prasad is concerned, he is entitled to be released on bail in view of the fact and e circumstances pointed out by the learned counsel for the ad petitioner Triveni Prasad.
Pr Consequently, this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of a hy the petitioner Triveni Prasad, is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner Triveni Prasad shall be ad released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum M of Rs. 60,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his of appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the rt case and for complying with the conditions enumerated ou under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Certified copy as per rules. C h (C V SIRPURKAR) ig JUDGE H vai VAISHALI AGRAWAL 2017.11.02 04:22:12
-07'00'