SHABBIR BHAI PALANPURWALA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first application has been filed by applicant under Sec. 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 40 of 2024 registered at Police Station Economic Office Wing, Ujjain, District- Ujjain (M.P.) for offence punishable under Ss. 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC and Sec. 13(1) (c), 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in the matter.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, in addition to the grounds mentioned in the application, submitted that allegedly, the applicant was working as Manager/ Muntazeem of the Wakf, Mazar-e-Nazmi. He has transferred the property of the Waqf by executing a sale deed in favour of Abbas Ali Barwahawala and others for a consideration of ? 11,00,000 by utilising a forged permission letter dtd. 11/9/2013 of the Administrator, M.P. Waqf Board, Bhopal. Learned counsel contended that the sale transaction was executed in 2015. The consideration amount was paid in favour of the Waqf- Mazar-e-Nazmi. There was no complaint for almost seven years. The sale deed dtd. 27/11/2015 was cancelled vide registered cancellation deed dtd. 13/5/2016 and the consideration amount was returned to the purchaser through account payee cheques by the Waqf at the time of cancellation of the transaction. The property remained in possession of the Waqf as mentioned in the cancellation deed. In year 2023, the complainant (the objector herein) had filed a complaint to the Police Station EOW, Ujjain. Learned counsel also submitted that the applicant co-operated in the investigation by providing his specimen signatures. Further, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not needed in the matter. Learned counsel referring to the judgments of the Supreme Court in cases of Delhi Race Club (1940) Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690 and International Advance Research Centre for P.M. & N.M. Vs. Nimra Cerglass Technics (P)Ltd. & Anr. reported in (2016) 1 SCC 348, contended that the intention to cheat, from very inception, was not involved in the present transaction. There was no entrustment of the property. There is no complaint by or on behalf of the Wakf- Mazar-e-Nazimi, till date alleging misdeed against applicant. The applicant is not beneficiary of the transaction. No wrongful loss to the waqf or the wrongful gain to applicant was caused in the transaction. Therefore, the offences punishable under Ss. 420 and 409 of IPC are not made out. Learned counsel further contended that there is no allegation that applicant has forged the permission letter of the Administrator, M.P. Waqf Board , Bhopal. He is not maker of the forged document. Therefore, the offences punishable under Sec. 467 and 468 of IPC are also not made out against the applicant. The applicant does not fall within any of the categories enumerated under Sec. 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The applicant is not a public servant. Further, the permission of competent authority before initiating the investigation was not sought in the matter as mandated by Sec. 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, the offence relating to Sec. 13(1)(C), Sec. 13(1)(D) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is also not made out against the applicant. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant is aged around 55 years. He is working as Manager/Muttawali at Siddhapur Mazar. He enjoys good character and social standing. No criminal antecedent is reported against the applicant. The custodial interrogation of the applicant is not needed in the matter. Jail incarceration on false accusation would cause hardship to the applicant and family. He is ready to cooperate in investigation. Therefore, applicant be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail.

(3.) Per contra, learned Counsel for the State opposed the bail application on the ground of gravity of alleged offence. However, he fairly stated that the report of State Examiner of Questioned Documents does not directly implicate the applicant. As per the State Examiner report, the sample handwriting of the applicant does not match completely with the handwriting on the questioned document i.e. the permission letter of Administrator, M.P. Waqf Board.