Jharkhand High Court
Dinesh Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Jharkhand --- --- Opposite ... on 26 February, 2021
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 303 of 2021
---
1. Dinesh Kumar Sharma
2. Satish Kumar Sharma
3. Abhishek Kumar Sharma --- --- Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand --- --- Opposite Party
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Through: Video Conferencing
---
For the Petitioners: Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the State: Mr. V.S. Sahay, A.P.P For the Informant: Mr. Vishal Kr. Tiwari, Advocate
---
03/26.02.2021 Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to remove the following surviving defects within two weeks.
9 (i) Name of petitioner no. 1 appears to differ from execution at vakalatnama
(ii) Mode of hearing not stated in presentation form.
Office to place the file for inspection and removal of defects, on requisition being made, within this time.
2. These three petitioners seek anticipatory bail in terms of Section 438 Cr.P.C in connection with Chas (M) P.S. Case No. 97/2020 for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and pending in the court of Miss. Seem Kumari Minz, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the written report which formed the basis of FIR discloses an agreement for sale between the Informant and one Om Prakash Sharma (Accused No. 1) against consideration of Rs. 13,50,000/- for purchase of certain land. Om Prakash Sharma is stated to be the Director of Pioneering Green City Builder Private Limited. The first two petitioners are his brother-in-law and petitioner no. 3 is his son who have been implicated in the instant case on allegation of threat of life and abuse as, according to the Informant, whenever he insisted upon execution of sale deed, the accused Om Prakash Sharma directed him to talk to these persons. Agreement for Sale at Page-28 to 30 shows that these petitioners were nowhere party or witness to the transaction. Therefore, they have approached this Court for protection in terms of section 438 of the Cr. P.C. It is submitted that dispute is of civil nature which has remedy under Special Relief Act and before the Competent Civil Court.
2.4. Learned counsel for the Informant has filed a counter affidavit and enclosed a power of attorney executed in the name of the petitioner no. 3, son of the accused Om Prakash Sharma. The sale agreement in the name of one Putul Devi through the power of attorney holder-petitioner no. 3 on behalf of the Company Pioneering Green City Builder Private Limited have also been enclosed as part of Annexure-C series. Learned counsel for the Informant submits that the modus operandi of the accused is to operate through these three petitioners, two of whom are his relatives and third one is his son. Therefore, the prayer for anticipatory bail may be refused.
5. Learned A.P.P prays for and is allowed time to seek instruction and file counter affidavit. In the meantime, call for the case diary in connection with Chas (M) P.S. Case No. 97/2020 from the Court of Miss. Seem Kumari Minz, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro.
6. Matter be listed on 12.03.2021.
7. In the meantime, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioners in connection with Chas (M) P.S. Case No. 97/2020 pending in the Court of Miss. Seem Kumari Minz, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) Ranjeet/