MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Atul Sreedharan, J.
Colonel Bhupendra Singh Kharayat - Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 26706 of 2020
Decided On : 11-08-2020
Bail - Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 439, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 474, 120B of IPC - The Supreme Court's guidelines on arrest - [JUDICIAL CUSTODY] - [439, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 474, 120B of IPC] - The court discussed the power of the police to affect an arrest and referred to the Supreme Court's guidelines on arrest from Joginder Kumar's case. The court criticized the insensitivity of the investigating agency in arresting the applicant, a senior citizen suffering from health issues, for an alleged non-heinous offence committed over twenty-five years ago. The court allowed the bail application and directed the applicant to be enlarged on bail upon furnishing a personal bond.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, a retired Colonel of the Indian Army, is in judicial custody for offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 474 read with section 120B of IPC. The case involves the sale of land based on power of attorney executed more than twenty-five years ago.
Finding of the Court:
The court criticized the insensitivity of the investigating agency and the judiciary in arresting and denying bail to the applicant, a senior citizen suffering from health issues, for an alleged non-heinous offence committed over twenty-five years ago. The court allowed the bail application and directed the applicant to be enlarged on bail upon furnishing a personal bond.
Issues: The insensitivity of the investigating agency and the judiciary in arresting and denying bail to the applicant, a senior citizen suffering from health issues, for an alleged non-heinous offence committed over twenty-five years ago.
Ratio Decidendi: The court referred to the Supreme Court's guidelines on arrest from Joginder Kumar's case and criticized the insensitivity of the investigating agency and the judiciary in arresting and denying bail to the applicant, a senior citizen suffering from health issues, for an alleged non-heinous offence committed over twenty-five years ago.
Final Decision: The court allowed the bail application and directed the applicant to be enlarged on bail upon furnishing a personal bond.
JUDGMENT
Atul Sreedharan, J. - This application has been filed on behalf of the applicant under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for offences under sections 420,467,468,471,472,474 read with section 120B of IPC and , registered vide Crime No.95/2020, at P.S. E.O.W Bhopal, District Bhopal.
2. The applicant is in judicial custody since 24/07/2020 in the above said case. The investigating agency is the Economic Offences Wing, Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as the "EOW"). The applicant is 78 years of age and is a retired Colonel of the Indian Army. He is President of the Tilak Grah Nirman Society, Bhopal.
3. Briefly, the facts of this case are that one Rabiya Bi is the complainant along with others registered the FIR against the applicant and other co-accused persons. The property in question is land ad-measuring 93.37 acres situated in Village Singarcholi, Bhopal. The owner was one Faiz Mohammad who died leaving behind seven legal heirs. They are Mohammad Ayub, Mohammad Yakub, Hanifa Sultan, Asma Sultan, Sikandar Khan, Qamar Khan and Anwar Khan. Out of the total area of 93.37 acres, 54 acres was demarcated for residential purpose while the remaining, approximately 39 acres was kept aside for agricultural purpose.
4. With the exception of Mohammad Yakub, the remaining six legal heirs of Faiz Mohammad jointly executed a power of attorney dated 17/01/1989 and transferred all the rights with regard to the aforesaid property to the power of attorney holder Mohammad Sharif (the then President of Tilak Grah Nirman Society). Similarly, Mohammad Yakub also executed a power of attorney on 05/08/1989 transferring all his rights with respect to the aforesaid property in favour of power of attorney holder Mohammad Sharif. Thus Mohammad Sharif became the power of attorney holder for six of the legal heirs by way of power of attorney dated 17/01/1989 and also the power of attorney holder for Mohammad Yakub vide power of attorney dated 05/08/1989. On the basis of the combined power of attorney given by the six legal heirs, Mohammad Sharif sold 34 acres of agricultural land through 12 registered sale deeds, executed in favour of various individuals between 04/02/1989 and 26/06/1989. On the basis of the power of attorney executed by Mohammad Yakub, Mohammad Sharif sold the remaining agricultural land of five acres and 64 decimal to Tilak Grah Nirman Samity vide 11 registered sale deeds and the same was executed between 15/11/1994 and 23/11/1994. Besides the power of attorney mentioned hereinabove all the 7 legal heirs of Faiz Mohammad executed 7 different power of attorneys in favour Mohammad Sharif between February and March 1990. Vesting the rights of remaining 54 acres of land in favour of Mohammad Sharif, the power of attorney holder.
5. On the strength of the 7 power of attorneys the remaining land of 54 acres was also sold to Tilak Grah Nirman Samiti by 14 registered sale deeds executed in the year 1997 and Tilak Grah Nirman Samiti further sold the land to 1500 persons.
6. In the FIR dated 07/02/2020, it has been alleged by the complainants that Mohammad Sharif had executed the power of attorney dated 17/01/1989 without the knowledge of the 6 legal heirs, the ancestors of the complainant and altered the remaining paragraphs of the power of attorney and thereby committed forgery. In the FIR, it was also alleged that Mohammad Sharif, in connivance with other accused persons, executed various sale deeds in favour of his family members and friends in the year 1989.
7. The applicant has been arrested in this case only because he happens to be on the post of President Tilak Grah Nirman Samiti, which had purchased lands from Mohammad Sharif who sold the same on the strength of the power of attorneys executed in his favour by the legal heirs of Faiz Mohammad, more than twenty five years ago.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has taken this Court through the medical documents pertaining to the applicant which are as recent as 29/05/2020,which reflect th
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.