KAMRUDDIN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 394 dated 22.12.2014, registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") at Police Station Bhupani, District Faridabad.

(2.) AS per the prosecution allegations, Smt. Jaibuna was having the lease rights for 20 years of the mine of mashodhari stone in the forest of village Pahadi, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan. The petitioner and his son Najir Hussain induced complainant -Ajit Singh, Subba and Ishraak for taking over the lease rights of the said mine. They paid Rs. 55,00,000/ - to them for the transfer of the lease rights. The petitioner and his son Najir showed the papers of the lease in their favour. The complainant also started operating the mine. But lateron, in the month of April, 2014 Tejpal and Jaipal came to the site and stopped them on the plea that Jaipal had purchased the lease rights. It was alleged that in this manner, the complainant has been cheated. The accused, in connivance with their co -accused, have only executed the agreement in their favour to grab their money and the lease was transferred in the name of Jaipal Singh. The petitioner was arrested on 8.1.2015. His bail application has been rejected by the Courts below. Hence, this petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that petitionerKamruddin is an old man. He is the father -in -law of Jaibuna, the lessee and has nothing to do with the disputed money. He is in custody since the last about three months. There is no documentary evidence to prove the payment of any money to the petitioner. He further contended that as per Annexure P2, the lease amount was Rs. 25,000/ - only. Even this very amount was found mentioned in the civil suit filed by the complainant and Israak. He further contended that now the matter has been settled between the parties. He has also placed on record the photocopy of the compromise. The petitioner is no longer required for the purpose of investigation. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail.