B.A./11092/2019 of RAJENDRA GOPE Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 18 December 2020

1. The State of Jharkhand

... … Opposite Parties

2. Tahir Khan

---------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

---------

For the Petitioner: Mr. Nilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor the State: Ms. Nehala Sharmin, A.P.P.For the O. P. No. 2: Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocate

---------

14/18.12.2020 Heard Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned A.P.P. for the State andMr. Binod Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the oppositeparty no. 2.

The petitioner is an accused in connection with ComplaintCase No. 4333 of 2018.

An agreement for sale was entered into between thepetitioner and the complainant. Consideration amount was alsopaid by the complainant. A Panchayati was convened since adispute had arisen. It was decided that the petitioner would giveRs. 46,00,000/- to the complainant but the petitioner did notmake any payment.

In this case, the petitioner was granted provisional bailvide order dated 19.12.2019 on the submission of the learnedcounsel for the petitioner that he is ready to return back anamount of Rs. 46,00,000/- as agreed upon in the Panchayatsubject to the condition that the land which was initially sold tothe complainant comprising 15 decimals shall be transferredback to the petitioner. However, in spite of giving sufficientopportunities, the matter could not be settled by both the sidesand accordingly the petitioner was directed to surrender withina period two weeks before the learned court below vide orderdated 06.07.2020. Subsequently, the petitioner has surrenderedon 30.07.2020 and since than he is in judicial custody.

It has been stated by Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counselfor the petitioner that after purchase of the land thecomplainant had sold the same to several different purchasersnamely Umesh Sahu, Geeta Devi and Manjur Ansari.

Mr. Binod Kumar, learned counsel appearing for theopposite party no. 2 while relying on the counter affidavit hasstated that the petitioner is involved in several cases. It hasfurther been stated that a title suit was preferred by BalaMahato and Karmi Devi through their power of attorney holderwho is the petitioner against the complainant but the same wasdismissed on 12.03.2019 and against which a miscellaneouscase has been preferred for restoration of T. S. No. 152 of 2014.

It appears that the land which the subject matter of thedispute has been sold by the opposite party no. 2 to differentpersons as enumerated in the various affidavits filed by both thesides. The petitioner was in custody since 24.10.2019 before hewas released on provisional bail on 08.01.2020 and thereafterhe remained in custody since 30.07.2020. The petitioner ineffect, therefore, has remained in custody for more than sevenmonths.

On consideration of the nature of allegation levelledagainst the petitioner and the period of custody undergone byhim, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released onbail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees TenThousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each, tothe satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1[st] Class, Ranchi,in connection with Complaint Case No. 4333 of 2018.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)