Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 370 (ORI)

Priyabrata Mohanty v. State of Orissa

2015-06-19

S.K.MISHRA

body2015
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Government Advocate. 2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest for the alleged commission of offences under Section 471, 467, 468/34 of the I.P.C. in Sahid Nagar P.S. Case No. 207 of 2014, corresponding to C.T. Case No. 1575 of 2014 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar. 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the property situated in Kardakanta Mouja belonging to the informant has been sold by one imposter impersonating the informant and executed a registered sale deed dated 02.04.2014 in favour of the petitioner. It is alleged by the petitioner that the said imposter was identified by Bimal Kumar Das and Rama Kanta Behera. Those two persons have also been arrayed as accused in this case. The F.I.R. further reveals that on the basis of information received by him over phone from his neighbor namely Ranjan Kumar Parida to the effect that a person namely Ramakanta Behera was trying to excavate his land and on being confronted, said Ramakanta Behera informed the informant's neighbor that the property was purchased by his brother by virtue of a registered sale deed. On getting that information, it is alleged that the informant obtained certified copy of the sale deed and came to know regarding the above impersonation. 4. In course of hearing of the Bail Application, the petitioner's counsel brought to the notice of the Court that the seller, who executed the allegedly forged sale deed, produced the original sale deed executed by Rajalaxmi Promoters in favour of Dr. Saroj Kumar Mallik, the informant. He also produced the Record of Rights along with the rent receipt and believing the same the petitioner had bona fide impression that the person, who sold the land to him by executing the sale deed is in fact real owner of the property. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner himself has been duped by somebody and therefore he cannot be saddled with the criminal liability and deserves to be granted anticipatory bail. Learned Addl. Government Advocate, on the other hand, has stated in course of hearing that the present petitioner might have set up by a person to impersonate the complainant Dr. S.K. Mallik in order to grab the landed property. Learned Addl. Government Advocate, on the other hand, has stated in course of hearing that the present petitioner might have set up by a person to impersonate the complainant Dr. S.K. Mallik in order to grab the landed property. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that from the seized Registered Sale Deed it is apparent that the informant is not the executants of the sale deed. 5. Viewing both these submissions, this Court finds that at the time of execution of the sale deed in favour of the present petitioner, the person who has impersonated Dr. S.K. Malik has produced the original sale deed through which the informant got the title to the said land in question. He also produced certified copy of the Record of Rights and one original rent receipt issued in favour of the informant. Possession of the original sale deed executed previously in favour of the informant and original rent receipt supports the contention that the petitioner he has been duped. On the contrary, the investigation of the case has progressed sufficiently. It does not put forth any material on record to the effect that the petitioner did in fact set up some other person to impersonate the informant and got the sale deed executed in his favour. Only because the sale deed has been executed in favour of the present petitioner a presumption cannot be derived that he is the author of the crime. Furthermore, it is apparent from the record that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Pandab Nagar. P.S. Baragada, Bhubaneswar and there is hardly any chance of his absconding from justice. Since the investigation of the case is sufficiently progressed, there is no chance of tampering with its progress. 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case, the application for anticipatory bail is allowed. It is directed that in the event the petitioner is arrested in connection with the aforesaid case, he shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by the Arresting Officer. The Bail Application is accordingly disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Application disposed of.