Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hemant Kumar Pathak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 March, 2021
Author: Akhil Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Akhil Kumar Srivastava
1 MCRC-4780-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-4780-2021
(HEMANT KUMAR PATHAK Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 02-03-2021
Shri Gopal Singh Baghel, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the objector.
Shri Pramesh Jain, learned counsel for the Intervenor.
Shri K.S. Patel, learned PL for the respondent/State.
Heard. Perused the case diary.
This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 142/2018 registered at P.S. Bhedaghat Jabalpur, District - Jabalpur (M.P.) for the offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B/34 of IPC.
As per the prosecution story, the allegation against the applicant is that on filing the complaint by Narendra Kataria before ASP (crime) Jabalpur it is come on record after investigation that owner of the land namely Balvinder Singh Ahluwalia and and Amrita Kaur has executed a mukhtyarnama (Power of Attorney) of one acre land in favour of Narendra Katraria of khasra no. 279/2 280/2 for which registry is made in the name of Narendra and Bhagwan Das. When complainant Narendra filed an application for change of name in the khasra (mutation) he came to know that accused Ajeet Dasani and Bhawna Sangtani are named as owner of the property in said khasras whereas the original owner of the land were Balvinder Singh Ahluwaliya and and Amrita Kaur. When statement of Balvinder and Amrita was recorded they denied sale of the said property to Ajeet and applicant Bhawna. The present applicant Mahesh Vishwakarma has given the memorandum that he prepared the forged sale agreement with the help of Gurmeet Singh Saini, Hemant Pathak and Rishi Verma and the said agreement has been seized from the house of accused Ajeet Dasani which was executed by the fake Balvinder Singh Ahluwaliya and Amrita Kaur in favour of Mahesh Vishwakarma identified by Hemant Kumar Pathak & Rishi Verma which was given to the Ajeet Dasani at the time of execution of sale deed. In the name of Ajeet Signature SAN Not Dasani and Bhawna Sangtani sale deed was executed in which names of Verified Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAGDEVE Date: 2021.03.08 16:28:08 IST 2 MCRC-4780-2021 accused Gurmeet Singh Saini as Balvinder Singh Ahluwaliya and Smt. Mahendar Kaur @ Nindo as Amrita Kaur were shown as owner and name of accused Mahesh, Hemant Pathak and Abhishek Soni were shown as identifier of seller and witness regarding sale of the land. Therefore, for fraud and preparation of forged documents the offence u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120- B of IPC has been registered against the applicant and co-accused.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he is in custody since 6/01/2021. It is further submitted that the present case completely rests upon the documentary evidence and purely of civil nature. The accused memorandum of Mahesh Vishwakarma recorded before the police cannot be taken as evidence. The only role attributed to the applicant is for identifying the sale agreement and putting his signature as witness in the said agreement. Charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take time to conclude. There is no likelihood of applicant absconding and tampering with the prosecution evidence and his further custody is not required in this case. On the aforesaid grounds, prayer is made to release the applicant on bail.
Learned Panel Lawyer as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the Objector and the counsel on behalf of Intervenor have opposed the submissions made on behalf of the applicant on the ground that looking to the FIR and other documents as well as the material collected during investigation the prima facie case is made out against the applicant. It is well settled law that defence of applicant is a matter of trial, it could not be considered at the time of grant of bail therefore, prayer is made to dismiss the bail application.
Heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire evidence in the physical case diary.
The Thana Incharge, Police Station Bhedaghat, Jabalpur dated 25/02/2021 has given the report that on investigation it is found that accused Mahesh Vishwakarma frequently used to visit Tevar and was well aware of the fact that Balvinder Singh Ahluwaliya whose property is in question in this matter was residing in Kolkata since last 15-20 years therefore, to sale the said property by forged mode he made conspiracy with stamp vendor K.S. Shukla and prepared the forged sale agreement of Rs. 75 lacs for purchasing the land of Balvinder Singh Ahluwaliya. When on 19/11/2020 Mahesh 3 MCRC-4780-2021 Vishwakar was arrested he has given the memorandum u/s 27 of the Evidence Act that he entered into forgery and prepared sale agreement with co-accused Gurmeet Singh Saini to appear as Balvinder Singh Ahluwaliya and co-accused Smt. Mahendar Kaur @ Nindo as Amrita Kaur in his favour in which co- accused Hemant Pathak and Rishi Verma were shown as identifier of seller and witness regarding sale of the land. The said sale agreement has been handed over to Ajeet Dasani at the time of execution of sale deed in favour of Ajeet Dasani and Bhawna Sangtani. The role of the applicant in connivance with main accused Mahesh knowing very well the factum of forgery he participated in the offence with Mahesh Vishwakarma and others and appeared as witness and identifier of seller in the sale agreement.
Therefore, keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the role attributed to the applicant in offence, this Court is of the considered view that it is not a fit case in which applicant may be released on bail.
Hence, the bail application is hereby dismissed.
(AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE navin