Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1185 (PAT)

Kumar Bhupendra Singh v. State Of Bihar

2004-11-30

M.L.VISA

body2004
Judgment 1. This application by the petitioner has been filed for cancellation of regular bail granted to opposite party No. 2 by this Court on 16.3.2001 in Cr. Misc. No. 7533 of 2001. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner lodged Pirbahore P S Case No. 256 of 2000 on 8.9.2000 by filing written report stating therein that after taking a shop on rent from Smt. Rama Devi in the year 1998 he was running a medicine business in that shop and opposite party No. 2 was working as salesman in his shop since 1998. He further stated that on 8.9.2000 when he alongwith his Compounder Laldeo Singh as usual went to the shop at 10 AM he found that lock of the shop was changed and he by peeping in the shop found that medicine worth Rs.1.5 Lacs were traceless. He suspected that opposite party No. 2 with the connivance of some criminals had committed some illegal act and when he and his compounder went to the house of opposite party No. 2 they found that opposite party No. 2 was not available in his house. Opposite party No. 2 was granted regular bail by this Court on 16.3.2001 in Cr. Misc. No. 7533 of 2001 considering his submission that after eviction of petitioner from the shop by its land lady he took the shop premises on lease through deed of lease and after obtaining licence opened a medical shop in the premises and was regularly paying the rent to the land lady. The case of petitioner is that opposite party No. 2 deliberately duped this Court by producing disputed documents but the fact is that the shop in question was under the valid tenancy of the petitioner and it was never let out to opposite party No. 2 by two ladies who are owners of shop premises and neither of the land ladies executed any deed in favour of opposite party No. 2 which is apparent from the written statement filed by one of the land ladies in Title Suit No. 9/2001 (Annexure-1). On the document of opposite party No. 2 as to obtaining drug licence the case of petitioner is that a complaint was made before the Drug Licensing Authority by the land ladies of premises and opposite party No. 2 was called upon by the authorities to make reply (Annexure 2). On the document of opposite party No. 2 as to obtaining drug licence the case of petitioner is that a complaint was made before the Drug Licensing Authority by the land ladies of premises and opposite party No. 2 was called upon by the authorities to make reply (Annexure 2). The further case of petitioner is that rent receipt which was Annexure-4 of the bail application of opposite party No. 2 was also not genuine and it was manufactured document. According to the petitioner, opposite party No. 2 has obtained bail by producing disputed documents. The petitioner has prayed for cancellation of bail granted to opposite party No. 2. 3. Opposite party No. 2 has appeared and has opposed the prayer of petitioner by filing counter affidavit stating therein that petitioner has filed Title Suit No. 9 of 2001 and in first paragraph of the plaint he has stated that shop in question belongs to defendants No. 2 to 5 and he is paying Rs. 400/- half of rent to defendant No. 2 i.e. Smt. Rama Devi and remaining half to defendant Nos. 4 and 5. Further case of opposite party No. 2 is that petitioner has sought relief in the title suit that it be declared that his tenancy of shop in suit still subsists and defendants No. 2 and 3 have no right to induct defendant No. 1 and defendants No. 1 to 3 be directed to remove their lock and allow him to put his lock and transact business in the shop. From the plaint of petitioner it is apparent that opposite party No. 2 has been inducted as tenant in the shop in question by defendants No. 2 and 3 i.e. Smt. Rama Devi and Raj Kumar Jaiswal. According to opposite party No. 2, the deed and rent receipt produced by opposite party No. 2 at the time of seeking bail in this Court were executed by Smt. Rama Devi and in the FIR itself petitioner has admitted that Rama Devi is the land lady of the shop. Further case of opposite party No. 2 is that Rama Devi has not disputed the genuineness of documents produced by opposite party No. 2 at the time of seeking bail and now petitioner has levelled false allegation against opposite party No. 2 that he produced forged document for getting bail. Further case of opposite party No. 2 is that Rama Devi has not disputed the genuineness of documents produced by opposite party No. 2 at the time of seeking bail and now petitioner has levelled false allegation against opposite party No. 2 that he produced forged document for getting bail. Further case of opposite party No. 2 is that it is not the case of petitioner that after release on bail opposite party No. 2 has misused the privilege of bail in any manner. 4. The petitioner has filed reply to the counter affidavit of opposite party No. 2 stating therein that Annexure-3 of the bail application of opposite party No. 2 filed in Cr. Misc. No. 7533 of 2001 is not a genuine document and it was not in existence on 24.8.2000 when it is said to have been executed because stamp of this agreement was purchased in the month of September which is apparent from the date put under the signature of typist which was originally 23.9.2000 but was made by overwriting 13.8.2000. It is further stated that even rent receipt which was annexure-4 of the bail application of opposite party No. 2 does not tally with Annexure-3 because in the rent receipt amount of rent has been shown as Rs. 6,000/- whereas in the lease agreement (Annexure-3) amount of monthly rent has been shown as Rs. 7,000/-. 5. The case of petitioner is that the shop in question belongs to two ladies and one of them has filed written statement in Title Suit No. 9 of 2001. With his application the petitioner has annexed written statement which is annexure-1. From the perusal of Annexure-1, I find that it has been filed on behalf of defendant Nos. 4 and 5 who have stated that they are co-owners of land and house of entire holding No. 106/78 alongwith Rama Devi, defendant No. 2. Thus, it is clear that this written statement (Annexure-1) has not been filed by Rama Devi and it has been filed by defendants No. 4 and 5. The records of Cr. Misc. No. 7533 of 2001 in which opposite party No. 2 was granted bail show that petitioner lodged written report against opposite party No. 2 stating therein that Rama Devi was owner of the shop in question and from her he had taken the shop on rent. The records of Cr. Misc. No. 7533 of 2001 in which opposite party No. 2 was granted bail show that petitioner lodged written report against opposite party No. 2 stating therein that Rama Devi was owner of the shop in question and from her he had taken the shop on rent. Opposite party No. 2 claims that after eviction of petitioner from the shop he (opposite party No. 2) was inducted as tenant in the shop by landlord Rama Devi who executed the deed of lease in favour of opposite party No. 2. T S No. 9/01 in respect of shop is already pending in the court of Munsif which is the own admission of petitioner. The petitioner is plaintiff and opposite party No. 2 alongwith some others is defendant in that suit. The statement of opposite party No. 2 made in his counter affidavit that in Title Suit No. 9/01 filed by petitioner one of the relief is for declaration that tenancy of petitioner is subsisting and defendants No. 2 and 3 had no right to induct opposite party No. 2 and their actions are illegal, void and not binding on the petitioner has not been challenged by petitioner who has filed reply to this counter affidavit. 6. Considering all these facts I find no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed.