IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

Reserved on : 29.09.2022

Pronounced on : 17.10.2022

Bail App No.306/2022

Ravinder Gupta

…. Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. Aseem Kumar Sawhney, Advocate

Versus

Union Territory of J&K

…Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy. AG

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1.

The instant application has been moved by the petitioner/accused,

whereby he has sought bail in a case arising out of FIR No.53/2022 for

offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 379, 504, 506 IPC registered with

Police Station, Gangyal, Jammu.

2.

The facts leading to the registration of aforesaid FIR are that on 18^th

May, 2022, the complainant Kamal Nabh Sharma lodged a written

complaint with the Police alleging therein that the petitioner herein has

illegally/ forcibly taken possession of his land situated at Greater Kailash,

Jammu. It was further submitted that the complainant had purchased a piece

of land measuring 15 ½ marlas from attorney holder - Abdul Majid and the

said land is falling in Khasra 549 min. According to the complainant, a sale

deed was registered in his name and mutation was also attested in his favour.

2 Bail App No.306/2022

He had constructed a boundary wall over the plot of land. He remained busy

with his service career and when, after his retirement, he visited his plot of

land, he found that the same has been illegally encroached upon and

occupied by the petitioner, who, according to him, is a notorious land

grabber. The complainant goes on to submit that he had approached the

Assistant Commissioner Revenue on 12^th May, 2015 and his application was

marked to Tehsildar, Bahu for necessary action, whereafter the Patwari

furnished his report in his favour. He has further submitted in the complaint

that when he visited house of the petitioner and asked him to vacate the land,

he was abused and threatened by him. He was further told by the petitioner

that the land actually belongs to him. He was given by the petitioner a copy

of the documents relating to the land, which, according to the complainant,

are fake and forged. On the basis of the aforesaid report, the FIR came to be

registered and investigation was set into motion.

3.

During investigation of the case, the petitioner was arrested on 19^th

May, 2022. The investigation is stated to be in progress and it has been

submitted by the respondent that demarcation of the disputed land is

required to be conducted and the verification of the documents produced by

the petitioner is also required to be undertaken.

4.

The petitioner has contended that he has not committed any offence

and that the dispute between the petitioner and the complainant is purely of

civil nature relating to demarcation of the land. It has been submitted that the

petitioner has not committed any offence even, as per the allegations made

in the FIR, and as such, he cannot be denied the concession of bail.

3 Bail App No.306/2022

5.

The application has been resisted by the respondent by filing

objections thereto. In the objections, the respondent has reiterated the

allegations made in the FIR. It has been contended that the petitioner is a

habitual offender, inasmuch as, 22 FIRs stand registered against him. It has

been further contended that the petitioner has been booked under the Public

Safety Act and has been kept in preventive detention because of his criminal

background. It has also been averred in the objections that the investigation

is still in progress and, as such, the concession of bail cannot be given to the

petitioner at this stage.

6.

It appears that the petitioner had approached the learned Judicial

Magist