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.