Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 320 (CHH)

KRISHNA KUMAR PATHAK v. STATE OF C. G.

2006-06-12

S.K.SINHA

body2006
ORDER This order shall dispose of the following Miscellaneous Criminal Cases: 1. M.Cr.C. No. 1138/2006 (Ajay Singh Thakur Vs. State of Chhattisgarh) 2. M.Cr.C. No. 1175/2006 (Krishna Kumar Pathak Vs. State of Chhattisgarh) 3. M.Cr.C. No. 140612006 (Suresh Kumar Verma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh) Shri B.D. Guru, Advocate, appears for the applicant in M.Cr.C. No. 1138/ 2006, Shri Arun Kochar, Advocate appears for the applicants in M.Cr.C. No. 1175/2006 & M.Cr.C. No. 1406/2006. Shri Sumit Jhawar, Panel Lawyer appears for the State in all the bail applications. Shri Suresh Pandey, Shri Gautam Khetrapal and Shri Devesh Verma Advocates appear for the objector in M.Cr.C. No.1138/2006. Shri Gautam Khetrapal, Advocat7, also appears for the objector in M.Cr.C. No. 1406/2006. Shri Y.C. Sharma & Shri Manoj Mishra, Advocates appear for the objector in M.Cr.C. No.1 175/2006. These are the 3 bail applications filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with crime No. 211/2006, registered at Police Station-Civil Lines, Bilaspur, Distt. - Bilaspur (CG.) for the offence punishable under Sections 465 & 420/34 of the IPC. The facts of the case are that the complainant namely Manoj Rai is the son of the land owner Laxmi Prasad Rai. His land is Khasra No. 54/34 area 0.72 acres situated in village Lingiyadih P.S. Sarkanda, P.H.no. 109, new no. 20. It is stated that a demarcation of the area was conducted at the instance of the applicant Suresh Kumar Verma (a land owner of the nearby area) and applicant Ajay Singh Thakur (builder) and a demarcation report was prepared. In the said report various manipulations were made from the original situation of the land and ultimately, the land physically belonging to the ownership and possession of the complainant's family were shown to be the land of Suresh Kumar Verma by giving it the numbers of the land of Suresh Kumar Verma. That is to say that in fact the Khasra numbers of the land of Suresh Kumar Verma were labeled on the said land. It is stated that the applicant Krishna Kumar Pathak who is working as Patwari has actively participated in the proceedings of the demarcation and he ultimately made these manipulations to show the lands of the complainant to be the lands of the applicants Suresh Kumar Verma. It is stated that the applicant Krishna Kumar Pathak who is working as Patwari has actively participated in the proceedings of the demarcation and he ultimately made these manipulations to show the lands of the complainant to be the lands of the applicants Suresh Kumar Verma. Learned counsel for the applicant in M.Cr.C. NO.1 175/2006, submits that prior to this first information report of Crime no. 211/2006, a complaint case was filed by Manoj Rai on 23.12.2005 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bilaspur, u/s 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 201/34 of the LP.C. and all the present applicants alongwith one R.K. Chaudhary were made as accused persons. He submits that ultimately on 09.1.2006 this complaint case was not pressed by the counsel for the complainant and it was dismissed in the aforesaid manner. He refers to the documents Annexure A-I & A-2 filed in M.Cr.C. No.1175/2006. He argues that after dismissal of the complaint case in the aforesaid manner, again a report was lodged to the Police Station and the cognizance in being taken by the police. His submissions is that dismissal of the aforesaid complaint in the manner referred to above, amounts to finalization of the case and no further actions can be taken by the police on the same complaint. So far as the other applicants are concerned, it is argued that this matter related to a civil dispute and no criminal action is possible. They submit that in a matter of civil nature, the applicants may be given benefit of Section 438 of Cr.P.C . On the other hand, learned State Counsel assisted by learned counsel for the objector opposes the bail applications. His submission is that a willful manipulation has been made in the demarcation papers which amounts to an offence U/S 465 and 420 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly considering that a complaint case was earlier filed and dismissed as not pressed by the complainant and further considering that the matter appears to be one on civil dispute, I am of the opinion that present are fit cases in which the applications should extended the benefit of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, their applications for anticipatory bail are allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants namely Ajay Singh Thakur, Krishna Kumar Pathak and Suresh Kumar Verma they shall be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety each in the like Sum to the satisfaction of the officer arresting them. This order shall remain in force for a period of six weeks from today, during which the applicants may apply for regular bail before the concerned court. In the result, M.Cr.C. No.1138/2006, 1175/2006 and M.Cr.C. No.14061 2006, stand finally disposed of. Anticipatory Bail Granted .