Jharkhand High Court
Manohar Prasad Bhadani vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr on 18 August, 2017
Author: Anant Bijay Singh
Bench: Anant Bijay Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 1635 of 2016
Manohar Prasad Bhadani ...... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Babulal Yadav
3. Rakesh Kr. Bhadani
4. Mukund Kumar Bhadani
5. Gopal Kumar Bhadani ...... Opposite Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P.
For the Opposite Parties : None
---------
10/Dated: 18/08/2017
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite parties.
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with the case registered under Sections 120B, 379, 406, 420, 467, 471, 427, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution case is that on 27.06.2009 Manohar Prasad Bhadani had executed a registered sale deed of 40 decimals of vide sale deed No. 3850 by mentioning wrong khata number as 220/563 and wrong plot number as 5847/6354 and had received Rs. 14,00,000/- cash for transfer of said land him. After that he had gone over his 40 decimals of purchased land for construction of boundary wall but other accused persons namely Mukund Kumar Bhadari, Gopal Kumar Bhadani and Praveen Bhadani objected him. After that, a proceeding under Section 107/145 of the Cr.P.C started between the parties. Thereafter, Manohar Prasad Bhadani (Petitioner) had executed a corrected sale deed on 05.07.2011 vide No. 4286 and subsequently, Plot No. 5847/6354 is corrected as 5847. After that petitioner asked him that he would execute another sale deed of 20 decimals of land, in which the plot number mentioned in sale deed of agreement was prepared on payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- as consideration amount out of Rs. 7,00,000/- for purchase of 20 decimals of land. Thereafter, he visited the house of complainant on 08.03.2015 and asked him to make necessary correction in the sale deed but the petitioner and his son Rakesh Bhadani had driven him out of their house and they had not executed the sale deed, hence this case has been lodged.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence. It is also submitted that at the time of agreement complainant had obtained the signature of accused petitioner on a stamp paper by deception and thereafter he had manufactured a false and fabricated agreement paper. It is also submitted that this case is of civil nature and there is no specific allegation against the petitioner.
When the case is called out nobody appeared on behalf of the O.P. No.2.
On 16.06.2017 both the parties are present and explored the possibility of reconciliation between the parties, but it had been failed.
Learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
In the fact and circumstances of the case, the above named petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below within four weeks from the date of this order and in the event of his arrest or surrender the Court below shall enlarge the above named petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of S.D.J.M., Koderma in connection with Complaint Case No. 224 of 2015, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Satayendra/