MAHENDRA KUMAR RUIYA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application for grant of anticipatory bail has been filed on behalf of Mahendra Kumar Ruiya in connection with P.C.R. No.416 of 2006, corresponding to T.R.No.991 of 2012 under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar.

(2.) The prosecution case as it appears from the complaint in brief is that the petitioner and co-accused Shiv Kumar Ruiya have been appointed as receiver by the Calcutta High Court under the A.P.O.T. No. 11/1997 ( Suit No.70/1966) in respect of trust property of Ruiya Dharamsala Building appertaining to vacant land of Mouza Jasidih No. 118 and Jasidih Bazar plot no. 28,29, 662/716 and 665 District Deoghar. An advertisement for sale of Ruia Dharamsala's vacant land was published whereafter the complainant expressed his willingness to purchase the said property for a valuable consideration of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- and out of said consideration amount, a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- was paid as earnest money to the accused persons and after that they entered into an agreement dated 18.10.2003. The accused persons had promised to obtain permission from Calcutta High Court within three months but they did not do so and retained the earnest money with them. The complainant made several approach to the accused persons but they postponed the execution of sale-deed on one ground or the other. Lastly the complainant made approach to Calcutta High Court and he could learn that the accused persons had not taken step for seeking permission to sell the aforesaid property in favour of the complainant. Since the complainant felt himself cheated by the accused persons, he lodged a complaint in which cognizance was taken on 17.9.2008 and the accused persons including the petitioner were directed to face trial under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter summons were issued but the accused persons did not appear. They preferred Cr. Revision No. 154 of 2008 before the Sessions Court which stood dismissed on 20.8.2010. When the accused persons did not appear, warrant of arrest non-bailable was issued against them on 13.12.2010. Even after issuance of warrant of arrest, they did not appear and then proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was ordered to be issued. The present petitioner then preferred an application for grant of anticipatory bail vide A.B.P.No. 628 2012 before the learned Sessions Judge which was dismissed with certain observation on 16.10.2012 and the petitioner was directed to surrender before the court-below within a period of three weeks from the date of said order for seeking regular bail. When the petitioner did not 2. appear in person before the court-below, process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. was directed to be issued on 22.10.2012 thereafter the petitioner has preferred present application for grant of anticipatory bail before this Court on 17.12.2012.

(3.) It is submitted that the petitioner had not signed any document or agreement in favour of the complainant nor he has received a single farthing from him.