Bail Granted Under S.483 BNSS As Accused Was Not A Direct Beneficiary In Alleged Land Fraud Case: Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail to Man in Land Fraud Case, Cites Lack of Direct Benefit

JODHPUR: The Rajasthan High Court recently granted bail to a man accused of conspiring to fraudulently transfer a complainant's land, observing that he was not a direct beneficiary of the transaction. The court also took note of a family member's statement suggesting the complainant had willingly sold the land.

The bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chandra PrakashShrimali was hearing a bail application filed by Madan Lal under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ), corresponding to Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner was arrested in connection with an FIR registered for offences of cheating (Section 420 IPC), criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC), and criminal conspiracy (Section 120-B IPC).

---

Background of the Case

The prosecution's case against the petitioner, Madan Lal , alleges that he was part of a conspiracy to deceive the complainant into transferring her land. The FIR states that the petitioner gained the complainant's trust by offering to help register her deceased son's property in her name. It is alleged that he then used this trust to obtain her signature on forged documents, concealing the true nature of the transaction.

A key grievance was the financial discrepancy; the complainant allegedly received only ₹25,00,000, whereas the property was purportedly worth ₹91,16,250.

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioner's Counsel: Mr. Manohar Singh , representing the petitioner, argued that his client was falsely implicated. He contended that Madan Lal 's only involvement was acting as a witness to the sale deed executed between the complainant and a co-accused. The counsel emphasized that the charge-sheet had already been filed, the alleged offences were triable by a Magistrate, and the petitioner had been in custody for a considerable period, warranting his release on bail as the trial was likely to be lengthy.

Prosecution's Opposition: The learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Lalit Kishor Sen, vehemently opposed the bail plea. He argued that the petitioner, along with co-accused individuals, had committed a serious fraud. The prosecution highlighted that the petitioner was in possession of the complainant's bank passbook and cheque book, indicating a deeper involvement. Furthermore, it was submitted that the petitioner had prior criminal antecedents of a similar nature.

Court's Rationale and Decision

After considering the arguments and reviewing the case materials, Justice Shrimali found sufficient grounds to grant bail. The court's decision was influenced by two critical factors:

1. Statement of the Complainant's Grandson: The court noted a statement recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS , in which the complainant's grandson, Praveen , acknowledged that his grandmother had agreed to sell her land to a co-accused for ₹60,000 per bigha, for a total sum of ₹25,00,000, along with a promise for the installation of two water huts.

2. Lack of Direct Benefit: The court observed that the petitioner, Madan Lal , was not a direct beneficiary of any of the alleged fraudulent transactions.

In its order, the court stated:

"Having considered the rival submissions as well as facts and circumstances of the case; and considering the fact that as per the statement given by complainant’s grandson Praveen under Section 180 BNSS , his grand mother accepted the fact that she had sold her land...; and considering the fact that the present petitioner is not a direct beneficiary to any of the fraudulent transaction, therefore, expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail."

Consequently, the High Court allowed the bail application. Madan Lal is to be released upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 and two sureties of ₹25,000 each, subject to his appearance before the trial court on every hearing date.