Nand Ram Yadav vs State of C.G.

Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.—Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 785/2012 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Korba Distt. Korba (C.G.), for the offence punishable u/ss 420, 468, 471, 120-B /34 of IPC the applicant has filed this application u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail. One Purushottam lodged a complaint before the Collector, Korba that the accused persons have committed forgery by concoction of document after entering into criminal conspiracy to defraud him inasmuch as the sellers have illegally included their names as co-sharers/co-owners in the revenue record and executed the sale deed in favour of purchaser Shivam Pandey, son of Devendra Pandey. According to the complainant, the present applicant who is a Clerk in the office of Sub-Registrar but was actually holding the charge of Sub-Registrar on the relevant date, has also participated in the conspiracy, and he interpolated in the 22 column issued by the Patwari and thereafter, registered the sale deed in spite of moving objection before him on 04.04.2012.

Learned State Counsel has opposed the prayer for grant of bail.

From the material available in the case diary, it appears that complainant Purushottam had two more brothers namely Rameshwar and Sarju. Till 1999-2000 name of Purushottam was exclusively recorded in the revenue record, however, after death of Rameshwar and Sarju in 1992 and 1998 respectively, the legal heirs/sellers got recorded their names as co-owners alongwith Purushottam. By interpolation the said co-owners increased the area of Khasra Number from 0.25 acre to 0.50 acre and have sold the increased area to the purchaser namely Shivam Pandey.

It has been urged by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was bound in law to register a sale deed which has been placed before him for registration. Referring to Rule 36 of the M.P. Registration Rules, 1939, he would argue that under the said provision, the applicant could not have refused registration of the document and as such while performing his official duties, he cannot be alleged to be involved in any criminal activity.

In the case diary, it has not been made clear as to how 22-Column issued by Patwari was interpolated or interfered by the applicant. The said documents were obtained by the sellers from the Patwari and it is also not clear as to what benefit the applicant has accrued by interfering with the said document. But for the allegation that this applicant also entered into conspiracy with other accused persons, there is no overt act alleged against him showing his involvement in defrauding the complainant.

Considering the nature of allegations and the material available against the present applicant in the case diary; the fact that he is a government servant and in the event of his arrest and his detention for more than 48 hours, he shall be suspended from duty; he is aged about 53 years haying roots in the society and there being no apprehension of his absconsion from the jurisdiction of the trial Court and not taking on trial; the documents available in his office having already been seized and his custodial interrogation is not required, this Court is inclined to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, his application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid offence, he shall be released on bail by the officer arresting him on his executing a personal bond in sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer on the conditions mentioned in Section 438 Cr.P.C.

C.C. as per rules.