Patna High Court - Orders
Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 17 October, 2023
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.63988 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-296 Year-2023 Thana- BUDDHACOLONY District- Patna
======================================================
1. SANJAY KUMAR @ SANJAY SINGH S/o- MITHILESH KUMAR R/o-
A/376, AG Colony, Ashiyana Nagar, P.S.- Shastri Nagar Dist- Patna
2. Mohnish Kumar @ Mohnish Kumar Singh son of Krishna Mohan Prasad
R/o- Saristabad P.S.- Gardanibagh Dist- Patna
3. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal son of Dinanath Prasad R/o- F.No-B/515, Dujra
Marine Drive Ps- Budhha Colony Dist- Patna
4. Diwakar Prasad Singh son of Ramcharitra Prasad Singh R/o- W.No-11, Near
Middle School Chandanpura Ps- Nayaram Nagar Dist- Munger
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Om Prakash Singh Son of Late Indra Prasad Singh R/o- Makhdumpur Digha
Ghat P.S- Digha Dist- patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prashant Kumar, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar, APP.
For the Informant : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 17-10-2023Heard Mr. Prashant Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned APP for the State and Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Budhha Colony P.S. Case No. 296 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the allegation made in the F.I.R., the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63988 of 2023(2) dt.17-10-2023 2/7 informant who is the land owner was not handed over the flats as per the development agreement dated 29.10.2016 in which it was agreed between the landowner (informant) and the builder that both the parties shall own 50% flats on each constructed floor of the Apartment. Subsequent to the said development agreement, on the same day, without modifying the registered development agreement, the parties proceeded to enter into a private settlement on the same day i.e. on 29.10.2016 to avoid the stamp duty required for the registration and they entered into settlement that 2nd and 3rd floor will go into the share of builder and 1st and 4th floor will remain in the share of the informant (landowner). That being the private settlement between the informant and the accused builder, the record reveals that subsequent to that, on 12.03.2017, another distribution of floor between the landowner and the builder which is allegedly signed by the landowner and the builder has been brought on record by way of Annexure P-5. Both the informant and the petitioners have raised the validity and genuineness of the said distribution agreement brought on record of the present bail application by way of Annexure P-5.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the purchaser and Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63988 of 2023(2) dt.17-10-2023 3/7 they have entered into sale agreement with the builder/developer on different dates and have also got the flats registered. Petitioner no.1 came into possession of Flat No. 201 (builder share) situated on 2nd Floor, petitioner no.2 is the owner of Flat No. 202 (builder share), petitioner no.3 is the husband of the owner of flat no. 301 (builder share) and petitioner no.4 is the owner of flat no.302 (builder share) both on the third floor belonging to the builder share. The aforesaid flats have been sold by the builder in terms of the mutual agreement which took place on the same day i.e. on 29.10.2016 subsequent to the registered agreement dated 29.10.2016. Learned counsel submits that petitioner no.1 has taken loan from the State Bank of India, RACPC Branch, Patna, petitioner no.2 has taken loan from State Bank of India, RACPC Branch, Patna and petitioner no.3 who is the husband of Purchaser Nitu Jaiswal too has taken loan from the same Bank, petitioner no.4 has purchased the flat no. 302 from the builder share in the name of his wife Neema Singh, however, copy of sale deed has not been brought on record and in support of purchase of flat, only municipal receipt has been brought on record on behalf of petitioner no.4.
5. Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that the signature of the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63988 of 2023(2) dt.17-10-2023 4/7 informant has been forged in Annexure P/5 which has been brought on record on behalf of the petitioners to save the builder. The signature of the land owner according to him don't match either with the builder agreement or subsequent share distribution which was entered into between the landowner and the builder. On these basis, he submits that petitioners in connivance with the builder have manufactured the forged document with respect to distribution of flats between the landowner and the builder dated 12.03.2017 (Annexure P/5). On which basis, the builder has sold the entire flat belonging to the share of the landowner. He submits that the petitioners don't deserve to be released on bail.
6. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submits that on examination of Annexure P/5, prima facie, it appears that the allegation made on behalf of the informant requires investigation with respect to genuinity of Annexure P/5.
7. Having heard the rival submissions of the respective parties as well as the development agreement dated 29.10.2016 and mutual agreement of share distribution entered into between the builder and the landowner of the same date dated 29.10.2016. On bare reading of the recital made in Para- 13 of the builder agreement, it appears that the parties had Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63988 of 2023(2) dt.17-10-2023 5/7 agreed to share flats between them on each floor to which both the parties are entitled to 50% share, however to deceive the State Government monetarily, they have entered into a private agreement with respect to share distribution to the effect that the flats of Floor Nos. 1 and 4 will remain in the share of landowner and the floor nos. 2 and 3 will remain in the share of the builder. So far as the petitioners are concerned, they are purchaser and specific statement has been made in Para-7 that the builder sold Flat No. 201 on 13.08.2020 jointly to the petitioner no.1 Sanjay Kumar and his wife Alka Bhushan, Flat No. 202 on 13.08.2020 to the petitioner no.2 Mohnish Kumar; Flat No. 301 on 28.02.2020 to Neetu Jaiswal, wife of petitioner no.3 and Flat No. 302 on 04.06.2018 to Neema Singh, wife of petitioner no.4. A computer generated report of the department of Registration, Excise and Prohibition, Government of Bihar has been brought on record in support of the said fact with respect to Petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4.
8. What worries this Court is Annexure P/5 on which basis the builder has sold even the flats which belonged to the share of the informant (the landowner), prima facie, on reading and comparing of signatures of the builder and the landowner, on development agreement dated 29.10.2016 and distribution Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63988 of 2023(2) dt.17-10-2023 6/7 agreement of same day, their signature on the distribution agreement dated 12.03.2017 don't tally with each other which appears to be forged document and no explanation has been given by the petitioners as to under what circumstances and why they have brought on record Annexure P/5 with respect to distribution of flats between the landowner and the builder allegedly entered on 12.03.2017.
9. Following statement in support of Annexure P/5 has been made in Para-14 and 16 of the bail application which is reproduced hereinafter:
"14. That to the shock and surprise of the petitioners, after the institution of the present F.I.R., it came to light that the Builder and Landowner (informant) had executed another Share Distribution arrangement dated 12.03.2017 whereby remaining units were sold to other buyers."
16. That it is worth consideration that the Scheduled Banks which had extended home loan facility to the respective buyers, had completed their own due diligence during which the landowner had connived with the Builder and raised no objection and he remained silent for about 5 to 8 years during the entire process of execution of Agreement for Sale, Bank Due Diligence, Sale Deeds and handover of possession to the petitioners and 3 years thereafter."
10. This Court would have enlarged the petitioners on pre-arrest bail, however the conduct of the petitioners reveals that Annexure P/5 raises doubt on their conduct and their Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63988 of 2023(2) dt.17-10-2023 7/7 complicity in committing forgery.
11. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna is directed to get the distribution agreement (Annexure-P/5) examined by handwriting expert and submit a report with respect to the genuinity of the signature of Sri Om Prakash Singh, the landowner and Mr. Sarwer Najmi, the builder from the original development agreement as well as private agreement entered into between the landowner and the builder on 29.10.2016 on or before 29.11.2023.
12. Re-notify the bail application on 29.11.2023.
13. In the meantime, the petitioners are directed to be released on provisional bail on such terms and conditions as the court below deems it fit and proper and in accordance with the conditions contained in Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(Purnendu Singh, J) mantreshwar/-
U T