OM PRAKASH CHHAWNIKA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State.

(2.) THE petitioner, who is accused for the offence under Sections 323, 341, 386, 392 and 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code, has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

(3.) LEARNED counsel adds that the original grudge of the complainant against the petitioner is that the petitioner happens to be a contender in the matter of acquisition of a piece of land in prime locality. The complainant asserts that he had entered into an agreement of sale of the land with one of the previous landlords. The petitioner on the other hand, had also acquired the same property by virtue of an agreement entered into with another co -owner. Both the rival co -owners of the property had contested a civil litigation in the Courts and the decision went in favour of the petitioner's vendors. The complainant never came into possession of the lands, rather it is the petitioner, who has been in possession of the lands and in this background, it is only for the purpose of applying pressure upon the petitioner to relinquish his claim that the instant case has been filed. Learned counsel adds further that the allegations in the complaint are totally wild and absurd inasmuch as while the complainant claims that the petitioner had offered a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/ - (Rupees five lakhs) for purchasing peace with the complainant, on the other hand he alleged that the same person, who had made the offer of the hefty amount, had snatched away his gold chain of meager value. This, according to the learned Counsel, is totally absurd and unbelievable.