NITESH KUMAR THAKUR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case registered under Ss. 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and have not committed any offence as alleged. As per the allegation, the complainant-opposite party no.2, who happened to be the Director of M/s. Durga Developer, Gopal Marketing Complex, Argora, Ranchi, engaged in construction of multi-storeyed buildings, was in search of land in Ranchi Municipal Area. Knowing the said fact, the accused persons including the petitioners approached the opposite party no.2 and placed photostat copies of the documents relating to land, appertaining to Khata no.29, plot nos.1860, 1861, 1862, 1863 and 1864; Khata no.123, plot nos.54, 56, 57, 58 and 59; Khata no.157, plot no.1804; Khata no.94, plot no.1761; and Khata no.53, plot no.1805, measuring total area of 8.32 acres, showing themselves to be owners of the same. It has further been alleged that the opposite party no.2 got ready to purchase the said land and gave Rs.90.00 lakh to the accused persons for construction of boundary wall, however, they neither constructed boundary wall nor handed over peaceful possession of the said land. It is further submitted that so far as the petitioner no.1 is concerned, he had merely introduced co-accused- Bhola Gosai and Sanjay Kumar Gosai with the opposite party no.2. So far as the petitioner no.2 is concerned, he was the witness of memorandum of agreement dtd. 3/4/2018. Co-accused- Sanjay Kumar Gosai has already been granted bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class-XXX, Ranchi vide order dtd. 29/3/2022 passed in Complaint Case no.5509 of 2019. Another co-accused- Bhola Gosai has been granted regular bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dtd. 20/6/2022 passed in B.A. No.308 of 2022. Hence, the petitioners may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

(3.) No one appears on behalf of the State as well as opposite party no.2. It was observed vide order dtd. 31/7/2024 that if the counsel for the opposite party no.2 did not appear on the next date fixed, the present anticipatory bail application would be decided on merit after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned APP.