KUMAR BHUPENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application by the petitioner has been filed for cancellation of regular bail granted to opposite party No. 2 by this Court on 16.3.2001 in Cr. Misc. No. 7533 of 2001.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that petitioner lodged Pirbahore P S Case No. 256 of 2000 on 8.9.2000 by filing written report stating therein that after taking a shop on rent from Smt. Rama Devi in the year 1998. he was running a medicine business in that shop and opposite party No. 2 was working as salesman in his shop since 1998. He further stated that on 8.9.2000 when he alongwith his Compounder Laldeo Singh as usual went to the shop at 10 AM he found that lock of the shop was changed and he by peeping in the shop found that medicine worth Rs.1.5 Lacs were traceless. He suspected that opposite party No. 2 with the connivance of some criminals had committed some illegal act and when he and his compounder went to the house of opposite party No. 2 they found that opposite party No. 2 was not available in his house. Opposite party No. 2 was granted regular bail by this Court on 16.3.2001 in Cr. Misc. No. 7533 of 2001 considering his submission that after eviction of petitioner from the shop by its land lady he took the shop premises on lease through deed of lease and after obtaining licence opened a medical shop in the premises and was regularly paying the rent to the land lady. The case of petitioner is that opposite party No. 2 deliberately duped this Court by producing disputed documents but the fact is that the shop in question was under the valid tenancy of the petitioner and it was never let out to opposite party No. 2 by two ladies who are owners of shop premises and neither of the land ladies executed any deed in favour of opposite party No. 2 which is apparent from the written statement filed by one of the land ladies in Title Suit No. 9/2001 (Annexure -1). On the document of opposite party No. 2 as to obtaining drug licence the case of petitioner is that a complaint was made before the Drug Licensing Authority by the land ladies of premises and opposite party No. 2 was called upon by the authorities to make reply (Annexure 2). The further case of petitioner is that rent receipt which was Annexure -4 of the bail application of opposite party No. 2 was also not genuine and it was manufactured document. According to the petitioner, opposite party No. 2 has obtained bail by producing disputed documents. The petitioner has prayed for cancellation of bail granted to opposite party No. 2.

(3.) THE petitioner has filed reply to the counter affidavit of opposite party No. 2 stating therein that Annexure -3 of the bail application of opposite party No. 2 filed in Cr. Misc. No. 7533 of 2001 is not a genuine document and it was not in existence on 24.8.2000 when it is said to have been executed because stamp of this agreement was purchased in the month of September which is apparent from the date put under the signature of typist which was originally 23.9.2000 but was made by overwriting 13.8.2000. It is further stated that even rent receipt which was annexure -4 of the bail application of opposite party No. 2 does not tally with Annexure -3 because in the rent receipt amount of rent has been shown as Rs. 6,000/ - whereas in the lease agreement (Annexure -3) amount of monthly rent has been shown as Rs. 7,000/ -.