Chandradip Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though there are defect nos. 9(i) to 9(vii) in the bail application being B.A. No.2818 of 2020 and defect nos. 9(i) to 9(viii) in the bail application being B.A. No.2880 of 2020 as pointed out by the stamp reporter but he has filed an undertaking that he shall remove the defects within 30 days after the physical court starts and the bail application may be heard as both are regular bail application of the petitioner.

Considering the same, this Court is inclined to hear the bail applications on merit but with condition that petitioner shall remove the defects within 30 days after the physical court starts.

Joint Registrar (Judicial) is directed to ensure the compliance of this order after the physical court starts so as to remove the defects.

Heard, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has prayed for grant of regular bail in B.A. No.2818 of 2020 which has been preferred in connection with Pindrajora P.S. Case No.39 of 2019, corresponding to G.R. Case No.731 of 2019, for the offence registered under Sections 420, 406, 120B IPC and Section 138 of the N.I. Act and petitioner has also prayed for grant of regular bail in B.A. No.2880 of 2020 which has been preferred in connection with Pindrajora P.S. Case No.87 of 2019, corresponding to G.R. Case No.53 of 2020, for the offence registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Pindrajora P.S. Case No.39 of 2019 has been registered by two persons Bipin Singh and Praveen Kumar under Sections 420, 406, 120B IPC and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as it is alleged in the First Information Report that Bipin Kumar has purchased land of Mauza- Bandhgora, having Thana No.35, Khata No.28 and Plot No.15 of an area of 6 decimals under Chas Circle in the District of Bokaro vide Registered Deed No.4241 dated 26.07.2014 and Praveen Kumar has also purchased land of 6 decimals of said part of the plot adjacent to Plot of said Bipin Kumar vide Registered Deed No.4240 dated 26.07.2014. Subsequently they have also paid Rs.80,000/- for mutation and for construction of boundary wall upon the said land which has not been done.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has never sold any land of the Government or protected forest area rather the land which has been sold by the petitioner is on the basis of Power of Attorney issued by the owner of of the land, as such, the land belongs to a private party, namely, Ajay Mahatha and others who have never filed any complaint against the petitioner and petitioner has been wrongly implicated in this case and is in custody, as such, he may be enlarged on regular bail.

Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and in support of his submission has referred at para 42 of the case diary where the statement of the Circle Officer, Chas has been recorded, who has categorically stated that Mauza- Bandhgora, having Thana No.35, Khata No.28 and Plot No.15 of an area of 6 decimals under Chas Circle which has been sold to Bipin Kumar is protected forest area, as such, he has prayed to reject the same.

Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the informant has also opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that he has filed a detail counter-affidavit along with the annexures.

Learned counsel for the informant in support of his submission has relied upon the statements made from Paras-4 to 15 of the counter-affidavit, which are as follows:

"4. That to gain confidence of the deponent, the petitioner showed them a Mukatarnama namely 4-127 dated 28.01.2011. Believing upon him, the deponent made payment of Rs.3,00,000/- and on 26.07.2014, the sale deed no.4241 was executed in the name of deponent. Thereafter, Rs. 12 Lakhs was also paid by the co-informant Praveen Kumar for which sale deed no.4240 dated 26.07.2014 was executed by the petitioner.

Thereafter, on being pressurized to get the mutation done in their respective names construct the boundary and thereby give the physical possession of the land. The petitioner again took Rs. 80,000/- from the deponent and another Rs.80,000/- from the co-informant Praveen Kumar.

That, he did not give any mutation papers or rent receipts or construct the boundary wall over the land but gave a forged and fabricated mutations, papers and rent receipts in the name of Praveen Kumar. At no point of time had he constructed the boundary wall, nor gave the physical possession to the informant and co-informant Praveen Kumar.

That, in the year 2016, the deponent came to know through the newspaper that Chandradeep Kumar had sold forest land by stating the same to be raiyati land to many persons of the town for which he had also gone to jail. On this deponent, tried to meet Chandradeep Kumar but without any success.

That in the year 2016 itself, the deponent came to know that the State Govt. of Jharkhand on the ground of selling of forest land by the petitioner got a case registered as against the petitioner being Sector-12 P.S. Case No.50 of 2016 in which the land given to the present deponent was also included.

That finally the deponent and co-informant were successful in meeting the petitioner on 16.12.2018 on which he gave a cheque of Rs.3 Lakh to the deponent to be encashed from Canara Bank, Bank being cheque No.556602 dated 11.2.2019. Similarly one cheque of Rs.12 Lakhs was also given to Praveen Kumar of Canara bank being cheque no.556603 dated 15/3/2019 with a condition that after the cheques are encashed, the lands registered in the name of deponent and the co- informant Praveen Kumar shall be revoked and the land according to the requirement shall return to the petitioner.

That on presentation of the said cheque by the deponent, the same was dishonoured because of the insufficient fund.

That similarly the cheque given to Praveen Kumar was also dishonoured because of signature were different. As such, it was crystal clear that the deponent had been cheated of an amount of Rs. 3,80,000/- where as other co-informant namely Praveen Kumar had been cheated of an amount of Rs.

12,80,000/- in this way a case under section 406, 420, 120 B IPC was registered as against Chandradeep Kumar.

That, absolute sale deed in favour of the deponent is on the basis of power of attorney given by Sri Ajit Kumar Mahtha and three others dated 28.01.2011 by the registered book IV- 1 to 7 in favour of the petitioner wherein the area given to the deponent was 6 decimal and to co-informant Praveen Kumar, the area was also 6 decimal.

That the power of attorney given to the petitioner was for 60 decimal only out of area of 14.60 acre.

That co-informant Praveen Kumar paid Rs. 12 Lakh from his account of Axis bank.

That however, on further enquiry, the deponent came to know that Bandgora under Chas thana, Thana No. 35, Plot No. 15 was a complete protected forest and could neither be sold or purchased, but knowing this aspect of the matter, the same was sold to the deponent and co-informant Praveen Kumar.

That the petitioner had sold the land to the deponent and co-informant Praveen Kumar on the basis of general power of attorney vide Attorney No. 127 dated 28.01.2011 and in the said power of attorney raiyat of Khata No. 287, Plot No. 15 of Bandgora Mouza given him a power of 60 decimal of land but the petitioner had registered the total 458 decimal of land against the said power from 2011 to 2017."

Learned counsel for the informant has further relied upon Annexure-E of the counter-affidavit at Page No.29 wherein item No.15, which relates to Mauza- Bandhgora and has been declared as protected forest area and has prayed that this Court may not enlarge the petitioner on bail as this petitioner has several criminal antecedents including FIR of Sector 12 (Bokaro) P.S. Case No.50 of 2016.

Learned counsel for the informant has further submitted that he got information that Government of Jharkhand has already filed Sector 12 (Bokaro) P.S. Case No.50 of 2016 against the petitioner as the petitioner has sold land of protected forest area and thereafter he verified about the land sold him and has found that informant also been cheated in the same manner by selling land of protected forest area.

Learned counsel for the informant has further submitted that Ajay Kumar, Forest Range Officer has subsequently filed a case vide Pindrajora P.S. Case no.87 of 2019, in which, the petitioner is accused, as such, this petitioner may not be enlarged on bail and he is in custody since 23.09.2019 in connection with Pindrajora P.S. Case No.39 of 2019 and he is in custody since 16.11.2019 in connection with Pindrajora P.S. Case No.87 of 2019 dated 16.11.2019.

Mrs. Sweta Singh, learned counsel for the State (appearing in B.A. No.2880 of 2020) has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that it is a case lodged by the Forest Range Officer under various sections i.e. 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B I.P.C. and the said case also relates with the Mauza- Bandhgora, having Thana No.35, Khata No.28 and Plot No.978 and the petitioner has 10 criminal antecedents, as such, he may not be enlarged on bail.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in all the cases which have been instituted against the petitioner, some are under consideration before the competent court of law and in some of the cases, he has been acquitted, as such, he may be granted bail to contest the case.

Considering rival submissions of the parties and having gone through the materials available on record and looking to the gravity of the offence that the protected forest land is being sold by the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly the prayer for bail of the petitioner in both the applications are hereby rejected.

Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned P.P. and Ms. Sweta Singh, learned A.P.P. are directed to bring this order to the knowledge of the authority concern as well as to the knowledge of learned Advocate General of the State of Jharkhand so as to expedite the matter.

However, the learned trial court shall not prejudice by any observation made by this Court. The prosecution shall place its case and defence shall also place its case and the learned trial court will look into the merit of the case.

Needless to say that Government should come with a Standard Operating Procedure with regard to the protection of Government land, protected forest land, khas mahal land and other lands which are being sold in the same manner and the registering authority is not looking into the matter while registering the forest land. Circle Officers of the concerned area are not vigilant with regard to the Government land, while it is being mutated. The Forest Officers are sitting tight over the issue and are also not vigilant and only coming to the Court to protect themselves by lodging the FIR, as such, this Court directs Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand Ranchi, Principal Secretary (Law), Environment and Forest and Principal Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand Ranchi as well as Director General of Police, Government of Jharkhand Ranchi to look into such matters where the Government land is being sold and litigations are being filed. The Government should come with a Standard Operating Procedure within a period of three months so as to protect the Government land.

Let a copy of this order be communicated through "FAX" to the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand Ranchi, Principal Secretary (Law), Principal Secretary Revenue & Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand Ranchi and Principal Secretary, Environment and Forest as well as Director General of Police, Government of Jharkhand Ranchi at once.

Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned P.P. and Mrs. Sweta Singh, learned A.P.P. for needful.