Gurpreet Singh Chawla v. M.cr.c(A)

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.Cr.C(A) No.554 of 2023 Gurpreet Singh Chawla S/o Shri Keshar Singh Chawla Aged About38 Years Resident Of Behind Income Tax Office, Sarbahar Road,Near Vaishnav Apartment Jharsugda, District - Jharsugda Odisha. ---- Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - P.S. Mana Camp Raipur, District -Raipur Chhattisgarh.---- Non-Applicant M.Cr.C(A) No.561 of 2023 Mohan Singh Ubeja S/o Shri Rawal Singh Ubeja Aged About 48Years Resident Of Behind Guru Hotel Near New Bus Stand, GovindNagar Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - P.S. Mana Camp Raipur, District -Raipur Chhattisgarh.---- Non-Applicant M.Cr.C(A) No.555 of 2023 Sunil Kedia S/o Shri Shyam Sundar Kedia Aged About 48 YearsResident Of Shyam Kunj, Behind Indome Tax Colony, SarbaharRoad, Jharsugda, District : Jharsuguda, Orissa ---- Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - P.S. Mana Camp Raipur, District -Raipur Chhattisgarh.---- Non-Applicant For Applicants: For Non-Applicant/State :For Objector: Shri TK Jha, Advocate.Shri Lalit Jangde, Dy. G.AShri RS Marhas, Advocate. 09.05.2023 Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 1.These 1[st] anticipatory bail applications under Section 438 of theCode of Criminal Procedure have been filed by the Applicants, whoare apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.117/2023 registered at PS Mana Camp, District Raipur (CG) for the offencepunishable under Sections 420, 467, 468/34 and 120-B IPC. 2.Prosecution case is that the Applicants have jointly entered intoan agreement of sale on 29.07.2021 with the Complainant namelyVinish Kumar Chabra and his father namely Surendra Kumar Chabrafor sale of land situated at village Temri, Raipur and they have alsoobtained earnest money of Rs.4 crores. It is alleged that though inthe said agreement, it has been shown that the lands for whichtransaction was made was adjacent to the VIP road and are in onechuk (piece), but when the present Applicants sent demarcationreport, it came to the notice of the Complainant party that the landswere not in one chuk (piece) and also not situated adjacent to themain road and thus they have been cheated, therefore, the aforesaidoffence has been registered against the present Applicants. 3.Learned counsel for the Applicants submits that the Applicantsare innocent and have been falsely implicated in the crime inquestion. He further submits that the transaction was purely of civilnature and in the agreement, at clause No.5, it has been mentionedspecifically that the consideration has to be paid only for the identifiedland after demarcation as per the agreed price but the Complainantparty had given a criminal color to it by lodging the FIR for a civildispute. He further submits that one of the co-accused namely AnilKumar Kedia has already been granted interim protection vide orderdated 02.05.2023 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C No.529/2023, therefore, considering all these aspects, the present Applicants maybe granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. 3.Learned counsel for the Applicants submits that the Applicantsare innocent and have been falsely implicated in the crime inquestion. He further submits that the transaction was purely of civilnature and in the agreement, at clause No.5, it has been mentionedspecifically that the consideration has to be paid only for the identifiedland after demarcation as per the agreed price but the Complainantparty had given a criminal color to it by lodging the FIR for a civildispute. He further submits that one of the co-accused namely AnilKumar Kedia has already been granted interim protection vide orderdated 02.05.2023 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C No.529/2023, therefore, considering all these aspects, the present Applicants maybe granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. 4.Per contra, learned Counsel for the State and Objector haveopposed the said prayer. Shri Marhas, learned Counsel for theObjector submits that the Applicants have deliberately mentioned thefact that the land was adjacent to the main road but from the veryinception, they were well aware that the land was not adjacent to themain road and also not in one chuk (piece) and this conduct of theApplicants itself shows that they intended to cheat the Complainant,the Complainant had already paid substantial amount of Rs.3 crores49 lacs in cash, which has been admitted in the whatsapp messagesalso by the Applicants and the same has also been taken by theComplainant in his income tax account and the said fact was alsoduly acknowledged in the agreement itself, the map which was sentin the whatsapp was not a genuine one, therefore, no case is madeout for grant of anticipatory bail. 5.Upon being asked, Shri Marhas submits that the map whichwas sent on 28.07.2021 is a nazari naksha prepared by theApplicants themselves. 6.Replying to the aforesaid submission, Shri Jha submits that theagreed rate was of Rs.1,206/- per square feet and total considerationas per the agreement entered into between the parties was more thanRs.15 crores. He further submits that the remaining balance has not been paid to the Complainant and to create pressure, theComplainant has taken the possession of the land and also raisedboundary wall on it and as per the recent amendment in theRegistration Act, if the possession has been handed over, thenregistration has to be done compulsorily and accordingly stamp dutyhas to be paid. 7.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, thesubmissions made, particularly considering that the parties haveentered into agreement on 29.07.2021 and the Applicants havespecifically stated in the agreement that they have purchased thelands at different times, therefore, the Complainant had anopportunity to obtain the sale deeds and further considering that atClause-5, a condition was mentioned that consideration has to bepaid only for the identified land after demarcation as per the agreedprice, without further commenting anything on merits, this Court is ofthe opinion that present is a fit case where the Applicants deserve tobe granted anticipatory bail. 8.Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that inthe event of arrest of the Applicants, on executing a personal bond fora sum of Rs 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) with one surety each inthe like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, they shall bereleased on bail on the following conditions:- (a) they shall not directly or indirectly make anyinducement, threat or promise to any personacquainted with the facts of the case so as to Priya dissuade him from disclosing such fact to theCourt. (b) they shall not act in any manner which will beprejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and(c) after filing of the charge sheet, the Applicants shallappear before the trial Court on each and every dategiven to them by the said Court till the disposal of the trial. (a) they shall not directly or indirectly make anyinducement, threat or promise to any personacquainted with the facts of the case so as to Priya dissuade him from disclosing such fact to theCourt. (b) they shall not act in any manner which will beprejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and(c) after filing of the charge sheet, the Applicants shallappear before the trial Court on each and every dategiven to them by the said Court till the disposal of the trial. (d) they shall not involve themselves in any offence ofsimilar nature in future. (e) they shall make themselves available for interrogation before the concerned police officer as and when required. (f) they shall furnish all the details of movable andimmovable property, bank accounts and their familymembers and shall not alienate the immovable property tothe extent of Rs.4 crores and if they possess properties inexcess of the Rs.4 crores, they are at liberty to transactwith the excess value of the land without any writtenpermission of the concerned Court below. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge