BAL KISHAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the 1st bail application filed under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the Applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.68/2018 registered at P.S Civil Lines, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (CG) for the offence under Ss. 420 and 467 IPC.

(2.) Prosecution case is that Complainant Ashok Agrawal had lodged FIR alleging that on 30/3/2007, the present Applicant had executed an agreement by making forged signature of the Complainant for selling his house i.e. House No.A-1, Satya Nivas bearing Khasra No.28/61 situated at Street No.2, Plot No.294/4, Block No.4, Behind LIC Building, Magarpara, Talapara, Bilaspur which was witnessed by Dilip Khandelwal and Ramnesh Vidhani. It is alleged that though seal of Notary Varun Kumar Pandey was present in the said agreement but copy of the said agreement was not notarized and attesting witnesses Dilip Khandelwal and Ramnesh Vidhani have given affidavits stating that no such agreement has been executed, therefore, the offence as aforesaid has been registered against the present Applicant.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question for which, he is in jail since 5/7/2023. He further submits that the accused person/Applicant is tenant of the Complainant and the Complainant had also filed a Civil Suit for eviction on 5/5/2007 against the Applicant and his wife before the 2nd Additional District Judge, Bilaspur vide Civil Suit No.18-A/2013 in which, though an eviction decree has been passed against the present Applicant and his wife vide judgment dtd. 13/11/2014, but, the present Applicant had taken a specific defence of the said agreement (Ex.D-2) and the concerned Court had not given any finding that the said agreement was executed in a forged manner and in para-37 of the said judgment, it has been observed that the Applicant had failed to examine any witness to prove the said document and further in para-38, it has been mentioned that for the sake of argument, if the said agreement is presumed to be genuine, then it does not affect the scope of landlord-tenancy suit. He emphasized that the said agreement is a questioned document, even in the Civil Suit, the dispute was about the said document which is purely of a civil nature. He further submits that for the same document, the Complainant had earlier filed a Complaint Case in which also, police station, Civil Lines had given report stating that no case is made out and the said fact has been recorded in the order dtd. 22/2/2012 and thereafter, vide order dtd. 6/11/2017, the JMFC, Bilaspur had passed a detailed order dismissing the same by giving cogent reasons but the Complainant had cleverly concealed the said facts before the local police having hand in glove and registered the 2nd FIR at the same police station and without making any proper enquiry, Head Constable-Ajay Chourasiya had lodged the impugned FIR, which clearly amounts to abuse of process of law as the finding given in the earlier criminal case had attained finality, therefore, the police has no authority to reopen the case without any foundation. He further submits that both the Courts below i.e. the Magistrate and 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur had not examined the true perspective of the facts of the case and rejected the bail application of the Applicant in a mechanical manner though the Applicant had a good case at least for grant of regular bail. He lastly submits that the Applicant is a senior citizen and conclusion of trial is likely to take quite some time, therefore, he may be released on bail.