SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 2745

CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.
Ghanshyam Raman Lal Nathani v. State of Chhattisgarh
Application under S.438 Cr.P.C | Crime No.271/2020



Anticipatory bail can be granted when there are no existing disputes affecting the applicant's title and no risk of influencing witnesses.

Headnote:In this case concerning anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant claimed to have sold land clear of disputes, but the complainant alleged fraud due to a pending appeal affecting the title. The court determined based on the applicant's assertions and withdrawal of prior legal disputes that anticipatory bail was warranted. Ultimately, the court allowed the application, stipulating conditions for the applicant's bail.

Table of Content
1. allegations of fraud concerning land title. (Para 2 , 3)
2. withdrawal of prior appeal affecting title. (Para 4)
3. conditions for anticipatory bail granted. (Para 5 , 6)

1. Heard.

2. This is an application fled under S.438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.271/2020 registered at Police Station City Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazaar - Bhatapara (CG) for the offence punishable under S.420, S.34 of the IPC.

3. The applicant allegedly sold a piece of land to complainant Dr. Manoj Kumar Sharma assuring him that there is no subsisting dispute attached to the land. The complainant later on came to know that First Appeal No.44/2007 relating to the subject land is pending before the High Court and thus, the applicants title is not clear and he has been defrauded of the amount of sale consideration to the tune of Rs. 15 lakhs (approx.).

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that First Appeal No.44/2007 has since been withdrawn by appellant Janabai, there is no cloud in the applicant's title, which he has passed to complainant Dr. Manoj Kumar Sharma.

5. Considering the nature of dispute and the statement made by learned counsel for the applicant that FA No.44/2007 has been withdrawn and there is no subsisting dispute in respect of the subject land, I am inclined to extend the benefit of S.438 of Cr.P.C. to the applicant.

6. Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer with the following conditions : -
(i) he shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required;
(ii) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him for disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer.
(iii) he shall not influence the witnesses during pendency of the trial.
Certified copy as per rules.
Petition allowed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top