Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1238 (MP)

Meena v. State of M. P.

2014-09-29

M.K.MUDGAL

body2014
JUDGMENT 1.Case diary is available. 2. This is first bail application filed by the applicants/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 294/2014, Police Station Huzrat Kotwali, District Gwalior, offences registered under Sections 420, 467 read with 34 of IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant just to pressurize them. Counsel further submits that the dispute appears to be purely civil in nature and no offences have been committed by the applicants/accused in any manner. 4. Counsel further pleads that in the original sale deed, which was duly executed signed by all sellers and the said document contains no overwriting regarding area of the land but after a lapse of three years, the applicants/accused have been falsely implicated in the case for interpolation in the area. On the aforesaid facts, learned counsel has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and prayed for its rejection. As per the prosecution case, on 10.03.2014, the complainant Rajaram Baghel filed a complaint before the Station House Officer, Kotwali, District Gwalior alleging that the applicants/accused are involved in making forged registered sale deed by interpolation. It is further alleged that survey No. 399 area 2.100 hectare was in his ownership. Out of the aforesaid area, 0.052 hectare was sold by him to the applicants/accused, Meena Bai w/o Sikandar and Suresh Singh S/o Vijay Bahadur Singh by executing a registered sale deed. 6. After registration of the aforesaid document, the applicants/accused have interpolated in the original registered sale deed by changing the area sold into the entire area i.e., 2.100 hectares possessed by him with the connivance of Sub-Registrar and its employees. On the basis of aforesaid facts, offences punishable under Sections 420, 467 read with 34 of IPC was registered against the applicants/accused. 7. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the alleged registered document was executed by Smt. Kamla Bai, Dharmveer, Girvar, Raghuveer, Saguna, Dhanvanti & Rajaram on 30.03.2010, whereby, as per applicant's/accused area 2.233 hectares of agriculture land pertaining to other survey numbers was sold by the aforesaid sellers to the applicants. 7. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the alleged registered document was executed by Smt. Kamla Bai, Dharmveer, Girvar, Raghuveer, Saguna, Dhanvanti & Rajaram on 30.03.2010, whereby, as per applicant's/accused area 2.233 hectares of agriculture land pertaining to other survey numbers was sold by the aforesaid sellers to the applicants. Except the seller Rajaram, remaining sellers have tendered their affidavits before the Additional Collector, Gwalior to this effect that the entire area of the survey No. 399 was sold by them to the applicants/accused along with other survey numbers. However, the seller Rajaram disputed the contents of the sale deed regarding Survey No. 399 area 2.100 hectare alleging that the entire area was not sold by him rather than only 0.052. The purchasers have made fabrication regarding area 0.052 and they had interpolated in the sale deed by adding entire area 2.100 with the connivance of the Sub-Registrar. 8. On the aforesaid facts, it is concluded that it is a case of civil nature and mutation of the applicants/purchasers was got recorded in the revenue paper on the basis of sale deed and execution of the sale deed is not disputed, only dispute in this case is whether area 0.052 was sold by the sellers or entire area i.e., 2.100 hectare of survey No. 399. The sale deed was executed four years before the alleged report. Considering the aforesaid circumstances of the case, the arrest of the applicants/accused are not required in this case, therefore, this application is allowed in the following terms: It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest by the investigating authority or by the Court, the applicants shall be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of arresting authority. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicants:- 1. The applicants shall comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by them; 2. The applicants shall cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be; 3. The applicants shall not indulge themselves in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be. The applicants shall cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be; 3. The applicants shall not indulge themselves in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be. A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance. C.C. as per rules.