Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1835 (JHR)

Basant Kumar Verma v. The State of Jharkhand

2025-09-08

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

body2025
By the Court:- ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 read with Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer to quash the order dated 14.09.2022 passed in A.B.P. No.1224 of 2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Hazaribagh whereby and where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge has granted anticipatory bail to the opposite party No.2 in connection with Complaint Case No.1950 of 2019 after considering that the opposite party No.2 herein is not a party to the deed of agreement nor is he the beneficiary of the same and the dispute between the parties to be civil in nature. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has erroneously observed that no specific overt act has been attributed to the opposite party No.2 in the complaint petition and on that erroneous impression, has granted anticipatory bail when the wife of the opposite party No.2 was the party to the agreement and was beneficiary of the same. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 4. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submit that the offences involved in the case is punishable under Sections 406 , 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code . The only allegation against the opposite party No.2 is that he aided his wife in encroachment of some ‘Khas Mahal Land.’ The undisputed fact remains that the opposite party No.2 is not a party to the deed of agreement nor is he the beneficiary to the same. So, obviously there is no specific overt act attributed to the opposite party No.2 so far as the offence punishable under Sections 406 , 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code . Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 5. So, obviously there is no specific overt act attributed to the opposite party No.2 so far as the offence punishable under Sections 406 , 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code . Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 5. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the complainant is aggrieved by the acts of the accused No.1 namely Deepika Gupta as the complainant by investing money got a lease deed renewed in the name of the said Deepika Gupta but Deepika Gupta instead of acting in terms of the agreement with the complainant, has instead filed a suit in the court of Munsif. 6. Under such circumstances, this Court do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 14.09.2022 passed in A.B.P. No.1224 of 2022 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Hazaribagh, by observing that there is no specific overt act attributed against the opposite party No.2 in the complaint petition and he is neither a party to the deed of agreement nor is he the beneficiary of the same and the dispute between the parties appears to be of civil nature and on that premise granting privilege of anticipatory bail to the opposite party No.2. 7. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to interfere with the said order dated 14.09.2022 passed in A.B.P. No.1224 of 2022 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Hazaribagh in exercise of its power under Section 482 read with Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 . 8. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.