ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 704 of 2017 instituted under Sections 420/406/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.

3. It appears that the complainant was in need to purchase some land on behalf of one M/s. Arcelor Mittal India Pvt. Ltd. for the purpose of development of forest and an agreement was also executed between the complaint and petitioner. It is alleged that at the time of agreement, the petitioner took Rs. 50,000/- as advance and later on he has also received Rs. 40,00,000/- on different dates through cash and cheques. Later on the complainant came to know that the land under agreement was Gairmajarua and could not be validly sold. Hence, he issued a legal notice to the petitioner cancelling the agreement and asked for return of advance money to which he did not pay any heed. Hence, complaint case was lodged.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent. No mode of payment or any money receipt has been brought on record by the complainant. There is no documentary evidence of payment of any money as alleged. It is further submitted that the same land which was under agreement with the complainant was later on purchased by Aadani Groups of Company for development of forest area for which no objection has also been issued by the concerned authority. It is further submitted that there is specific stipulation in the alleged agreement that “if first party failed to get registration of the sale deed then advance money Rs. 50,000/- shall be forfeited. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent. It is further submitted that petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case and will not indulge in tampering with prosecution evidence and will abide by all terms and conditions imposed by this Court in the matter of granting anticipatory bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and has submitted that the complainant has paid Rs. 40 lakhs rupees through various modes to the petitioner, who was always making some pretexts for registration of sale deed and due to his negligence sale deed could not be executed and he has also dishonestly misappropriated Rs. 50,000/- advance given to him. Hence, petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

6. It appears from the entire contents of the complaint petition that the agreement was entered into in the years 2002 (Annexure -2) in which payment of Rs. 50,000/- as advance has been mentioned which is also subject to the condition that if first party abstain from execution of sale deed in his favour without any reasonable cause the sum paid in advance would be forfeited. It is also admitted that legal notice was issued to the petitioner stating inter alia that the land agreed for the purpose of sale is Gairmajarua and could not be sold but at the same time the said land has been sold to Aadani Group. The contested matters in this case shall be decided on merits during the trial.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of allegation against petitioner coupled with materials available on record, I am inclined to extend privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the Court below within four weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrendering, he will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned JM, 1st Class, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No. 704 of 2017 with the condition that he will co-operate with the investigation of the case and appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed by him