Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jeewan Rajak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 May, 2019
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-18613-2019
(JEEWAN RAJAK Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
1
Jabalpur, dated: 15.05.2019
Shri T.K. Modh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Maqbool Khan, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Shri Ashish Tiwari, learned counsel for the objector. Case diary is available.
Heard on this first application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.537/2014 registered at Police Station: Gohalpur, Jabalpur under Sections 188, 420, 447, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
As per the prosecution case, Sunderlal, father of the present applicant and co-accused Sunita Rajak, Savita Rajak, Sarita @ Kavita Rajak, Geeta Rajak and Anita Rajak, purportedly purchased a land in the year, 1947 from one Lala Manmohan Das Tondon by a registered sale-deed. In the year, 2003, Sunderlal got aforesaid land mutated in his name. Sunderlal died on 30.04.2010. After the death of Sunderlal, applicant Jeewan, moved an application for mutation of his name on the aforesaid land. At the time of mutation, co-accused Sunita, Savita, Sarita @ Kavita, Geeta and Anita, who are sisters of the applicant and their mother filed affidavits relinquishing their rights in the land, consenting to mutation of the name of applicant alone on the aforesaid land. The aforesaid mutation was accordingly carried out; therefore, the applicant sold the aforesaid land to one Shri Jain. Thereafter, one Shri Agarwal, filed an application to the effect that Sunderlal had purchased aforesaid land in the year, 1947 by a forged sale-deed and no such sale-deed was registered in the office of the Registrar. It is also alleged that the applicant Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 17/05/2019 04:02:18 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-18613-2019 (JEEWAN RAJAK Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 2 and other co-accused persons committed cheating and forgery by manipulating in the revenue record. On that basis, crime under the aforementioned offence has been registered against the applicant and other co-accused persons.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in the crime. It is further submitted that there was some dispute between the complainant and applicant with regard to allocation of their respective land. It is also submitted that the matter is purely a civil nature. It is further submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of the address shown in the application. He is ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all terms and conditions imposed upon him. There is no chance of his absconding or tampering with the evidence. In view of the aforesaid, a prayer has been made to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.
Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant has fraudulently mutated his name in the revenue records. In view of the aforesaid, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant deserves to be dismissed.
On perusal of the case diary and on going through the documents, it seems that prima-facie that the applicant has transferred the ownership of land by mutating his name in the revenue record. The applicant appears to be a main accused in the crime and the allegation of cheating and forgery is also against the applicant.
However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the fact as pointed out by the learned Government Advocate and looking to the gravity of the offence, without commenting upon the merits of the case, in Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 17/05/2019 04:02:18 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-18613-2019 (JEEWAN RAJAK Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 3 the opinion of this Court, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant-Jeewan Rajak.
Consequently, this first application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed on behalf of applicants, stands dismissed.
(Mohd. Fahim Anwar) Judge taj.
Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 17/05/2019 04:02:18