SUDHIR KUMAR BHADANI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the anticipatory bail applications are being taken together filed by different sets of petitioners arising out of common cause of action in respect of Complaint Case No. 339/2003 pending in the Court of C.J.M., Koderma. The prosecution story in brief is that a piece of land measuring 0 45 acre of given plot number and Khata number was purchased by the complainant Dr. Manoj Bhadani against registered sale deed who later on constructed boundary wall over the said land and had also installed an iron gate on the cost of Rs. 9,000. The complainant had also constructed a wall with its roof covered by corrugated sheets which cost him Rs. 1,50,000/-. He had engaged a guard for the care and protection of the properties. On 27.8.2003 at about 11 a.m. the informant pursuant to the information received went to the place of occurrence with the witnesses and found that the petitioners along with others had been removing iron gate which was installed by the complainant and his brother. When the action of the petitioners was opposed by the complainant it is alleged that the petitioner Sudhir Kumar Bhadani took out a pistol and fired upon the witness Ajit Kumar Bhadani but without injury. In the same sequence after terrorizing the complainant and his witnesses, the petitioners removed the iron gate put it on the pull cart and took it away with them. In this manner the complainant sustained a heavy monetary loss. They had also removed building materials including the iron rods and cement. The said complaint was permitted to be withdrawn on the petition of the complainant Manoj Bhadani disclosing the reason that at the time of lodging the complaint he was mentally disturbed on account of occurrence which took place on 27.8.2003 and therefore he could not give the detail description of the occurrence to his lawyer for the institution of complaint. Subsequently the complainant filed a different complaint case which was numbered as 339 by giving a detailed description with the specific attribution of the petitioners of both the anticipatory bail petitions. Besides, narrating allegation of removal of iron gate as well as the building materials against the petitioners the complainant alleged in the subsequent complaint petition that the petitioners, forming an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons like gun, revolver etc. removed the building materials on at truck. It was further alleged that the petitioners Santosh Bhadani snatched a chain made of gold from the brother of the complainant Ajit Kumar Bhadani worth Rs. 25.000/-. The another petitioner Pravin Bhadani @ Bhulu removed the golden ring, worth Rs. 10,000/- from the finger of Ajit Kumar Bhadani and the another petitioner Krishna Mohan Bhadani @ Tuntun removed Rs. 10,000/- from the pocket of the same victim Ajit Kumar Bhadani. It was further alleged that the other petitioners Sudhir Kumar Bhadani and Ravi Bhadani started strangulating Ajit Kumar Bhadani and the latter any how removed himself from the clutches of the assailants and the petitioner Sudhir Kumar Bhadani fired from his pistols but since Ajit Kumar Bhadani fell down, he could not sustain injury from the shot fired by the petitioner Sudhir Kumar Bhadani.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners pointed out that after suppressing the material fact that a Complaint Case No. 332/2003 was earlier filed by the complainant which was withdrawn the subsequent Complaint Case No. 339/2003 was brought about on false and frivolous allegations after mixing more colour and the petitioners have genuine grievance of their being arrested, since the cognizance of the offence after due enquiry has been taken under sections 148, 323, 392, 427 and 379, I.P.C. by the C.J.M. Koderma.

(3.) Advancing his argument learned Counsel submitted that the lands referred to in the complaint petition is in fact the property of C.H. Private Ltd. Company registered under the Companies Act and no individual shareholder of the Company has any right to dispose of any property of the company except the decision taken by the Board of Directors. There are series of litigation peding between the coshare-holders and Directors of the company with regard to landed property and therefore, the allegation did not fall within the ambit of criminal liability rather within the purview of civil dispute. The petitioners are well reputed businessmen who command respect in the society, not at all concerned with the alleged occurrence which can well be inferred from the first complaint filed by the complainant without any attribution against the petitioners and that the allegation of firing shot in the first complaint petition against the petitioner Sudhir Kumar Bhadani was false and for such reason the local police declined to institute a case observing that the dispute was of a civil nature. The Court may find that the substantial development of facts have been made in the subsequent complaint petition which was lacking in the earlier one. Learned Counsel on behalf of the complainant opposed the anticipatory bail of the petitioners of both the anticipatory bail applications.