Bimal Lohra (Aged Near About 45 Years) … vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 January, 2025

Jharkhand High Court

Bimal Lohra (Aged Near About 45 Years) … vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 January, 2025

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      Cr.M.P. No.3326 of 2023
                                ------

Bimal Lohra (aged near about 45 years) S/O Late Ram Shankar Lohra,
Resident of New Police Line, P.S.-Gonda, District Ranchi (resident of
Ambatoli, Baihitamba Toli, P.O.-Kisko, P.S.-Kisko, Dist.-Lohardaga,
Jharkhand) at present resident of village-Kota, P.O. Saparom, P.S. Nagri,
District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.

                                            ...            Petitioner
                                Versus
    1. The State of Jharkhand
    2. Manoj Mahli S/O Shri Birsha Mahli
    3. Binod Tirkey S/O Shri Birsha Mahli

Both Opposite Party no.2 and 3 are resident of village & P.O.
Lalgutwa, P.S.-Nagri, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

                                            ...           Opposite Parties
                                 ------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
                                       ------
       For the Petitioner        : Mr. Prakash Chandra, Advocate
                                 : Mr. Virendra Kumar, Advocate
                                 : Ms. Neetu Verma, Advocate
       For the State             : Ms. Ruby Pandey, Addl.P.P.
                                        ------
      Order No:-10 Dated:-17-01-2025
            Heard the parties.

Though notice has validly been served upon the opposite party No.2 and
3 but no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party No.2 and 3 in spite of
repeated calls.

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure with a prayer to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite
party No.2 and 3 (Manoj Mahli and Binod Tirkey) in terms of the order dated
12.09.2022 passed in A.B.A. No.5415 of 2022 in connection with Nagri Police
Station Case No.54 of 2022 registered for the offence punishable under Sections
406/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, now pending in the Court of learned
Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

The brief fact of the case is that the opposite party No.2 and 3 were given
the privilege of anticipatory bail vide order dated 12.09.2022 passed in A.B.A.
No.5415 of 2022 in connection with Nagri Police Station Case No.54 of 2022
wherein the allegation against them was that they entered into an agreement
for sale but they have sold the land to one Smt. Reshma Bada. The predecessor
Judge in the roster considered the submissions of the petitioners that the
complainant does not want to get the sale deed executed nor he is taking back
the money paid by him as advance and the dispute is exclusively of civil nature
and the complainant has alternative remedy to get the sale deed executed by
filing a suit for Specific Performance of agreement to sale and granted the
privilege of anticipatory bail to the opposite party no.2 and 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party no.2
and 3 falsely submitted that the said Plot No.445 consist of 80 decimals though,
in fact, the area of the said plot is only 20 decimals, hence, it is submitted that
the same amounts to suppression of material facts, therefore, the bail granted to
the opposite party no.2 and 3 be cancelled. Hence, it is submitted that the
prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed.

Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently
opposes the prayer and submits that there has not been any suppression as the
predecessor Judge in the roster who granted the privilege of anticipatory bail to
the opposite party no.2 and 3 was very much conscious of the fact that the
allegations against the petitioners is that the petitioners have sold the land in
respect of which they entered into an agreement for sale to a person other than
the complainant, but it is apparent that what weighed with the predecessor
Judge in the roster was the contention of the petitioners that the complainant is
not paying the remaining amount nor interested in taking the land in respect of
which agreement for sale was entered into and the dispute between the parties
is basically a civil dispute and the alternative remedy for filing a suit for
Specific Performance of Contract is available to the complainant. It is next
submitted that in this backdrop whether or not, the said area of the plot no.445
is 80 decimals or 20 decimals is immaterial, so far as the grant of bail to the
opposite party no.2 and 3 are concerned, hence, it is submitted that the prayer
made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, is
dismissed.

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going
through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that
the grounds upon which the bail granted to the accused person of a case can be
cancelled illustratively though not exhaustively are as under:-

(i) by indulging in similar criminal activity,

(ii) interfering with the course of investigation,

(iii) attempted to tamper with evidence or witnesses,

(iv) threaten witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper
smooth investigation,

(v) there is likelihood of their fleeing to another country,

(vi) attempted to make themselves scarce by going underground or
becoming unavailable to the investigating agency,

(vii) attempted to place themselves beyond the reach of his surety, etc.

Now coming to the fact of the case, there is no allegation against the
opposite party no.2 and 3 of indulging in any acts, deeds or things for which
ordinarily the bail granted to accused can be cancelled. The only allegation
against the petitioner is that the area of the said plot no.445 is 20 decimals only
instead of 80 decimals as claimed by the petitioner.

After going through the order by which anticipatory bail has been
granted to the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that whether or
not, the area of the said plot no.445 were 80 decimals or 20 decimals was not a
factor which was taken into consideration by the predecessor judge in the
roster who granted the said anticipatory bail rather the predecessor judge in the
roster considered the submissions of the petitioners before it who was the
opposite party no.2 and 3 in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition that they are
ready and willing to execute a sale deed in terms of the agreement entered into
by them with the complainant, but the complainant is not cooperating in taking
the said land and the alternative remedy of filing a suit for Specific
Performance of Contract is available to the complainant.

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there
is no justifiable reason to cancel the bail granted to the opposite party No.2 & 3
in terms of the order dated 12.09.2022 passed in A.B.A. No.5415 of 2022 in
connection with Nagri Police Station Case No.54 of 2022 by the predecessor
Judge in the roster.

Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any
merit, is dismissed.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Abhiraj/