AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Since both the anticipatory bail applications arise out of one and the same case, hence they are taken up together and disposed of by common order.
The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with C.P. Case
No. 33 of 2016 for the offence under sections 323, 420, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution case, in short, is that the petitioners along with his associates entered into an agreement with the complainant for sale of 70 acres of land within Mouza Shitalpur, Mouza No. 177, Khata No. 52,84, 71, 85, 73, 37 and other khatas and received Rs. Three lakhs but they did not got the sale deed executed nor replied the notice dated 10.12.2016. It is also alleged that prior to execution of agreement to sale, petitioners entered into an agreement for sale dated 18.02.2014 with the Royal Enterprizes with respect to the same land.
A.B.A. No.2616 of 2016
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and as a matter of fact, the petitioner and co?accused entered into the agreement with the complainant and it has been agreed that the petitioner and co?accused will arrange 70 acres of land in Mouza Shitalpur on different rates and received a sum of Rs. 2 lakshs only as an advance money on behalf of the raiyats and during the negotiation the complainant side retracted from the terms and conditions as asked for directed to get agreement from the raiyats. Further, it has been submitted that in the aforementioned agreement which has been entered into by and between the raiyats and the complainant party in presence of the petitioner a civil suit has been filed by the complaint party against the raiyats namely Bipad Taran banerjee, Jaideo banerjee and others bearing the original suit no. 143 of 2016. It is further submitted that the present case is purely of civil nature. No case under the alleged offences is made out again the petitioners as the petitioner is only a broker.
A.B.A. No.3463 of 2016
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case . It is further submitted that the present case is purely of civil nature. Further, from perusal of complaint petition, it appears that petitioner and the co?accused both are merely land brokers and land owner has not given any power of attorney. No case under the alleged offences is made out against the petitioner.
Learned A.P.P as well as learned counsel for the opposite parties opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
It appears that this court tried to reconcile the matter through process of mediation but opposite parties have not taken interest for reconciliation.
Further, it appears that lower court record was called from the court concerned which has been received. From perusal of S.A of the complainant, it appears that in para 2 of the S.A, complainant has stated that on 27.09.2014 an agreement was made for 70 acres land in Shitalpur Mauza and at the time of agreement he had paid Rs. 3,00,000/?. Further, from perusal of lower court record (vide annexure 2 & 2/1), it appears that two Cheques of Rs. One lac each has been taken by the petitioner?Sushant Choudhary and an agreement was prepared but the sale?deed was not executed.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the nature of offence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.
Let a copy of this order along with L.C.R be sent to the court concerned.