Jharkhand High Court
Bimlendra Kumar Choudhary @ Bimlendu ... vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 22 February, 2019
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 818 of 2019
------
1. Bimlendra Kumar Choudhary @ Bimlendu Kumar Choudhry
2. Swapan Bhandari @ Sapan Bhandari
3. Pradeep Mahato @ Chhotan @ Pradip Mahato @ Pradeep Mahto @ Chotan
4. Arbind Mahto
5. Shekh Siraj ... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Addl. P.P.
------
Order No.02 Dated- 22.02.2019
Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Chirkunda (Maithan O.P.) P.S. Case No.219 of 2018 registered under sections 406/420/120(B)/147/323/506/379 of the Indian Penal Code.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. P.P. for the State.
The Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that though the consideration amount of the land which has been purchased by the petitioner no.1 from the informant was Rs.17,50,000/- but the petitioner has paid only Rs.1,00,000/- for the said land. The learned counsel for the petitioner, drawing attention of this Court to page no. 9 of the supplementary affidavit dated 13.02.2019, further submits that the consideration amount was Rs.1,00,000/- as mentioned in the sale deed and the sale deed was executed on 18.07.2016 but the complaint was filed only on 05.09.2018 i.e. more than two years after registration of the sale deed, without any explanation for delay. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. Reported in 2015 (6) SCC 287 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
30. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) Cr.P.C applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations.
This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of the said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores.
31. We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that an application under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit is so that the person making the application should be conscious and also endeavor to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). That apart, we have already stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the nature of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR.
And it is submitted that the complaint is not supported by affidavit and there is no document to show that the consideration amount was 17,50,000/-. It is further submitted that this case has been instituted only to harass the petitioners and the petitioners undertake not to disturb or annoy the informant in any manner during the pendency of the case and also undertake to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.
Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the above named petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the date of this order, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Dhanbad, in connection with Chirkunda (Maithan O.P.) P.S. Case No.219 of 2018 with the condition that the petitioners will cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will furnish their mobile numbers and a copy of their Aadhar Cards in the court below with the undertaking that they will not change their mobile numbers during the pendency of the case and also undertakes that they will not annoy or disturb the informant in any manner during the pendency of the case subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu/Gunjan-