Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 800 (UTT)

Chandramohan Bhatt v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-11-08

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. Applicant Chandramohan Bhatt seeks bail in connection with Case Crime No.224 of 2016, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 147 IPC, Police Station Patel Nagar, District Dehradun. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the grounds taken up in the bail application. 3. The applicant has alleged in para 8 of the bail application that Smt. Kusum Lata had preferred a civil suit against father of complainant (being O.S. No. 503 of 2011 Smt. Kusum Lata Vs. Sri Ram Swaroop before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun for partition and permanent injunction in respect of another Joint property left by Original owner Janki and the said suit has been decreed ex-parte against the predecessor of the complainant vide judgment and decree dated 01.09.2012. The complainant Somnath thereafter with ulterior motives applied for setting aside the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 01.09.2012 and the said application was allowed on costs of Rs. 2000/- on the complainant. However, the said suit O.S. No. 503 of 2011 Smt. Kusum Lata Vs. Sri Ram Swaroop is pending adjudication. The applicant also submits in para 14 of bail application that in the FIR the respondent no. 3 has alleged about execution of an Agreement to Sell dated 21.10.2013 which has been got executed by Smt. Kusumlata through her power of attorney i.e. applicant herein. In the said Agreement to sell Smt. Kusumlata has put forth the clear picture and has also mentioned about the pendency of the suit under Section 229-B for declaration of petitioner’s name as owner of ½ of the land of her father Chotey Lal and the said Agreement to sell is a registered document. 4. Learned senior counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail of applicant and relied upon paras 15 & 16 of the counter affidavit, which are quoted here under: “15. That when the defendant Late Shri Ram Swaroop came to know about the ex-parte decree, he immediately on 25.09.2012 moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 C.P.C. registered as Misc. Case No. 109 of 2012 Ram Swaroop Vs. Smt. Kusum Lata and others and thereafter vide order dated 10.02.2016 the said ex-parte decree was set aside and suit was restored to its original number. The said suit is still pending for final adjudication. 16. Case No. 109 of 2012 Ram Swaroop Vs. Smt. Kusum Lata and others and thereafter vide order dated 10.02.2016 the said ex-parte decree was set aside and suit was restored to its original number. The said suit is still pending for final adjudication. 16. That though the frivolous Suit U/S 229-B and Sec. 176 of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act, was filed by the plaintiff/co-accused Smt. Kusum Lata but vide order dated 15.06.2015 the learned trial court had allowed the injunction applications filed by the plaintiff/co-accused Smt. Kusum Lata on 14.11.2011 and 24.04.2015.” 5. Learned senior counsel for the complainant further submitted that the property was sold by the present applicant in the capacity of power of attorney holder of his sister Smt. Kusum Lata, despite the order of the Court. Learned senior counsel for the complainant fairly submits that such an act should not be tolerated at any cost. He further submits that on the basis of fraudulent entry in the revenue record, the applicant has no locus standi to transfer the land in favour of someone else. It is nothing but a case gross cheating. 6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the dispute between the parties is still under adjudication the applicant surrendered before the Magistrate on 31.08.2016 and he has no previous criminal history. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant only interim bail to the applicant for a period of three months only, even though such prayer has not been made by learned counsel for the applicant. 8. Let the applicant be enlarged on interim bail, for a period of three months only, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned. 9. However, the applicant will be at liberty to move for extension of his bail on or before the expiry of stipulated period of his interim bail. 10. Bail application stands disposed of accordingly.