MOHAMMED ABDUL RAUF SIDHIQUI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicants apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 68/2021 registered at Police Station Sukma, District (CG) for commission of offence under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of IPC have preferred this application under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to them.

(2.) Case of prosecution is that complainant Sheela Singh lodged written report on 5/8/2021 stating that land bearing Khasra No. 1301/3 area 2.0230 hectare situated in PH No. 13, Sukma, recorded in her name in revenue records has been fraudulently sold in the name of Mohammed Abdul Rauf Siddiqui and Sheikh Jilani (applicants) vide registered sale deed dtd. 15/1/2020 by impersonating her. When she applied for certified copy of revenue records in the office of the Tahsildar, she came to know that her land has been fraudulently sold to applicants. On receipt of written report, the Station House Officer concerned wrote letter dtd. 7/8/2021 to the Tahsildar, Sukma seeking information with regard to present status of ownership and status prior to 15/10/2020 (date of execution of sale deed) of land in question. After receiving reply from the office of Tahsildar, Sukma on 17/8/2021 FIR is registered against applicants and others. Application preferred by applicants before concerned Court below for grant of anticipatory bail was rejected.

(3.) Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for applicants would submit that applicants are bonafide purchasers of land in question, which they have purchased for total consideration of Rs.10,00,000.00. Applicants have not committed any offence as alleged against them. They were not aware about identity of person executing sale deed in their favour. Complainant herself is a fictitious person and her identity itself is doubtful. It is also doubtful whether complainant Sheela Singh is original recorded owner of land in question. Hence, there is no prima facie case in favour of complainant. He pointed out that when applicants have deeply enquired about status of complainant, they came to know that in school record complainant's father name is recorded as 'Shivbaran' not as 'Surendra Singh', whereas in revenue records land in question is recorded in the name of 'Sheela Singh daughter of Surendra Singh Kshatri', not in the name of 'Kumari Sheela Singh daughter of Shivbaran'. Copy of school admission register obtained from the office of Principal, Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Sukma, District Sukma is placed on record along with application for taking action against complainant under Sec. 340 Cr.P.C. Hence, claim of complainant is not correct and further action be taken against complainant/ objector. Applicants are local residents of District Sukma, hence they may be extended benefit of anticipatory bail.