Patna High Court – Orders
Ravi Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 17 January, 2025
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67310 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-504 Year-2023 Thana- BARBIGHA District- Sheikhpura
======================================================
Ravi Kumar aged about 40 Years, Sex- Male, Son of Ashok Singh, Resident
of Village - Dhanpur, Police Station - Kashichak, District - Nawada
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Sheo Nandan Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Madan Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ahmad Ali, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
5 17-01-2025
Heard Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel
along with Mr. Bipin Kumar, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Sheo Nandan Prasad, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant and Mr. Ahmad
Ali, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Barbigha P.S. Case No. 504 of 2023, registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 406, 419, 410, 467, 468, 471,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67310 of 2024(5) dt.17-01-2025
2/8
504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the
informant and the petitioner had entered into an agreement
dated 18.08.2021 for proposed sale of land belonging to one
third person, namely, Late Mohan Dhanuk, son of Chhattar
Dhanuk, resident of Dharmraichak, District- Lakhisarai, who is
not party to the said agreement. The agreement of sale has been
brought on record by the informant by way of ‘Annexure-P/B’ to
the counter affidavit for alleged allegation that the petitioner had
received a total sum of Rs. 1801000/- from the informant both
by way of cash transaction, as well as, bank transaction.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely
been implicated in the present case. He further submitted that
from the bare perusal of the agreement, it would appear that the
petitioner and the informant had entered into an agreement in
respect of a land belonging to a dead person, one Late Mohan
Dhanuk, whose details are given in the agreement dated
18.08.2021. It can only be said to be a sham transaction entered
since the parties have no right/title over the piece of land
described in the agreement. Learned senior counsel, in these
backgrounds, submitted that the petitioner has agreed to return
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67310 of 2024(5) dt.17-01-2025
3/8
the entire amount which he had received from the informant and
to that effect he has also made a specific statement in paragraph
no. 11 of the supplementary affidavit. Learned senior counsel
has further questioned the intention of the informant, who has
also with an intention to dupe the original land holder, had
entered into a sham transaction, for which, he has alleged that
he had already paid certain amount. However, learned counsel
further submitted that petitioner is also ready to negotiate with
the informant to return the amount as claimed by him in
paragraph no. 2 of the counter affidavit, which requires some
time and if the petitioner is not released on pre arrest bail, the
same will not serve the purpose to either of the parties. On
these grounds, petitioner seeks to be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant submitted that petitioner has committed fraud with
the informant by realising a total sum of Rs. 1801000/- about
which, date-wise details of transaction has been given in
paragraph no. 2 of the counter affidavit in respect of a land
which don’t belong to him. It is admitted that certain
transactions were made by bank transaction and the rest amount
were paid by means of cash transaction to the petitioner as and
when, the informant could arrange the same from time to time
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67310 of 2024(5) dt.17-01-2025
4/8
between the period 03.12.2020 to 20.03.2021. Learned counsel
further submitted that the informant being innocent was having
no knowledge about the owner of the said land but the petitioner
convinced and gave assurance to get registered the land
belonging to Late Mohan Dhanuk about which, he came to
know much later. He further submitted that the agreement dated
18.08.2021 being a sham and fraudulent transaction, the
petitioner, who has accepted/acknowledged in the agreement
dated 18.08.2021 that he had received the amount mentioned
therein is required to be returned to the informant.
6. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
7. Having considered the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties, as well as, the admitted fact that the
agreement was executed between the petitioner and the
informant on 18.08.2021, while the informant has admitted in
paragraph no. 2 of the counter affidavit that on 03.12.2020,
much before the date of agreement, he had given a sum of Rs.
1,01,000/- to the petitioner, similarly, on 30.12.2020, he had
given Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner, on 17.01.2021, he had given
1,00,000/- to the petitioner, on 17.02.2021, he had given Rs.
1,00,000/- to the petitioner, on 28.02.2021, he had given Rs.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67310 of 2024(5) dt.17-01-2025
5/8
3,00,000/- to the petitioner, on 06.03.2021, he had given Rs.
2,00,000/- to the petitioner, on 08.03.2021, he had given Rs.
1,50,000/- to the petitioner and on 20.03.2021, he had given
8,00,000/- to the petitioner. None of the amount was ever paid to
the petitioner at the time of entering of the agreement, however,
certain details are there in the recital of the agreement that
altogether total amount of sixteen lac sixty six thousand was
paid to the petitioner by the informant, to which the petitioner
had agreed on 18.08.2021 and the agreement dated 18.08.2021
cannot be said to be an agreement of sale in absence of the same
being not signed and agreed by the land owner.
8. The statutory provision of Section 54 of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides that the title in
immovable property valued at more than Rs. 100 can be
conveyed only by executing a registered sale deed. This Section
specifically provides that a contract for sale of immovable
property is a contract evidencing the fact that the sale of such
property shall take place on the terms settled between the parties
but does not by itself create any interest in or charge on such
property. Unless a registered document of sale is executed
pursuant to the Agreement to Sell in favour of the proposed
transferee, the title of the suit land continues to vest in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67310 of 2024(5) dt.17-01-2025
6/8
original owner and the property remains in his ownership. The
doctrine of part performance can be availed by the proposed
transferee against the Transferor or any person claiming under
him and not against the third party with whom he does not have
any privity of contract.
9. The Apex Court in the case of R.K. Mohammed
Ubaidullah & Ors. vs. Hajee C. Abdul Wahab (D) Ors.
reported in (2000) 6 SCC 402 observed that “the person who
purchases the property should have made necessary effort to
find out whether the title or interest of the person from whom he
is making purchase of the property was in actual possession of
such property. Considering the effect of Section 19 of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963, and Section 52 of TPA, 1882, it was
held that subsequent 2023/DHC/000740 purchasers have to be
fairly informed before he purchases the suit property.”
10. This Court will not interfere in any manner in
respect of the statement, which has been made in the
supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner that he
will enter into negotiation with the informant to make payment
of the remaining amount in view of the fact that very agreement
between the informant and the petitioner appears to have been
prepared for committing forgery with a common intention to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67310 of 2024(5) dt.17-01-2025
7/8
dupe the land of one Late Mohan Dhanuk. Such fraud has been
seen common and is being committed in the State of Bihar in
connivance with the staff of the sub-registry office. As no
allegation has been made in any manner by the original land
owner, who has not been kept in picture by the informant or by
the petitioner, I find that the dictum of law laid down by the
Apex Court in the case of Bimla Tiwari vs. State of Bihar &
Ors. passed in SLP (Crl.) Nos. 834-835 of 2023, will not come
in aid of the petitioner. The parties have agreed to negotiate,
who have entered into a sham transaction with common
intention and the ingredients of Section 420 cannot be said to
have not made out in the present case and are held responsible
for their own act.
11. The petitioner, above named, is directed to be
released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of his/her arrest or
surrender before the learned District Court within a period of
four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Sheikhpura, in connection with Barbigha P.S. Case
No. 504 of 2023, subject to the condition as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67310 of 2024(5) dt.17-01-2025
8/8
12. The learned District Court is directed to verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioner as stated in
paragraph no. 3 of the bail application. If any other case is
pending against the petitioner as what has been stated in
paragraph no. 3, this order will lose its force automatically.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
U T
[ad_1]
Source link