Jharkhand High Court
Ramesh Kumar Sahu vs State Of Jharkhand on 30 July, 2012
Author: Prashant Kumar
Bench: Prashant Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
B. A. No. 4279 of 2012
Ramesh Kumar Sahu ... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... ... Opp. Party
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR
............
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jai Prakash Jha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Aishwarya Prakash
For the Opp. Party : Mr. A.K. Prasad, A.P.P.
4/30.07.2012Bail application filed by petitioner Ramesh Kumar Sahu in connection with Lalpur P.S. Case No. 34 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 583 of 2012 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi is moved by Sri Jai Prakash Jha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Sri A.K. Prasad, learned Additional PP.
Petitioner who is Secretary of Duke Co-Operative Housing Construction Committee Ltd. had constructed apartment namely Moyee Enclave and sold flats to different persons including informants. It is alleged that while executing sale deed, petitioner stated that there is no encumbrance on the property in question. However, later on Bihar State Housing Co-Operative Federation Limited issued an advertisement vide advertisement No. 9 of 2012 stating therein that petitioner took loan of Rs. 66,10,000/- (Rs. Sixty six lacs ten thousand) by mortgaging the property in question. Accordingly, Federation asked informants to vacate the said flats so that same can be auctioned. Accordingly, informants detected that petitioner duped them by saying that there is no encumbrance on the property in question.
It is submitted by Sri Jai Prakash Jha that petitioner already paid Rs. 70,07,093/- (Rs. Seventy lacs seven thousand ninety three) in the Federation against loan amount. He further submits that a proceeding under Bihar Public Demand Recovery Act is already pending before competent authority and petitioner filed his show cause in that case. Under the said circumstance, notice issued to Federation is illegal. Accordingly, it is submitted that petitioner be enlarged on bail.
On the other hand, Sri A.K. Prasad, learned Additional PP submits that it is an admitted position that petitioner mortgaged the property in question with Federation for taking loan. Under the said circumstance, statement given by him that there is no encumbrance on the property in question at the time of executing sale deed amounts to deceiving purchaser (informants). Thus, offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. Hence petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
Having heard the submissions and after going through the record of the case, I find substance in the submission of learned Additional PP. Thus, I am not inclined to enlarge petitioner above named on bail. Accordingly, his bail application rejected.
(Prashant Kumar, J.) Binit