- (1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. This application is filed by Rajveer with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 29 of 2005 under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 418 and 120-B I. P. C. P. S. Surajpur District Gautambudh Nagar.
(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that in the present case the F. I. R. has been lodged by one Dinesh at P. S. Surajpur on 2-3-2005 at 3. 30 p. m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 18-8-2003 against the applicant and co-accused Manoj, Sunil and Om Prakash. It is alleged that the applicant was having agricultural land in village Sahadra bearing its khasra No. 757 area 4. 7. 0 = 1. 1002, its old khasra Nos. 610, 611, 612, 614, 616, 726 and 727 the applicant entered into an oral agreement in the month of August, 2003 to sale the entire land of khasra No. 757 in favour of the first informant. Its value was calculated by the co-accused Sunil, the relative of the applicant, as Rs. 18,92,250/-and the assurance was given by the applicant and co-accused Sunil that the land was free from any dispute and no other agreement to sale was executed to any other party relying on the applicant and the co-accused Sunil the above proposal was accepted on 18-8-2003 and for the same deal the first informant paid Rs. 10 lacs to the applicant on 18-8-2003, in presence of the Sub-Registrar Dadri and for remaining amount of Rs. 8,92,250/-he issued cheque No. 06126 on 18-8-2003 and the same was handed over to the applicant and the sale-deed was executed by the applicant in favour of the first informant. THE witnesses of the sale-deed were Om Prakash and Manoj, the son of the applicant, both the witnesses were the member of the conspiracy hatched by the applicant. THEreafter on the basis of the aforesaid sale-deed dated 18- 8-2003 the first informant initiated the proceedings of mutation, in the office of Tehsildar, Sadar Guatam Budh Nagar in which 23-9-2003 was fixed for order and objection etc. Prior to that date the applicant and his son Manoj and his relatives co-accused Sunil came at the house of the first informant and demanded a sum of Rs. 3 lacs. THE first informant paid a sum of Rs. 3 lacs to the applicant on 20-9- 2003 for the same a stamp receipt signed by the applicant and other co-accused was issued to the first informant. THE amount of Rs. 5,92,250/-was balance on the first informant but the applicant was having a cheque of the amount of Rs. 8,92,250/-the balance amount was not paid by the first informant so that the first informant may be able to take possession of the land concerned and to establish his ownership and he was intending to pay the balance amount after obtaining the first crops. On 23-9-2003 the date was fixed in the Court of Tehsildar Gautam Budh Nagar where the first informant came to know that one Santosh Chaudhary, Secretary of Van Vihar Samoohik Sahkari Krishi Samiti Limited Ghaziabad had filed objection against the mutation because the same land had already been sold by the applicant after executing a registered sale-deed on 15-7-1988 and he came to known that the applicant has played fraud by executing second sale-deed in respect of same land and he has misappropriated the amount of Rs. 13 lacs of the first informant he again played a fraud by depositing the chaque issued by the first informant in respect of the amount of Rs. 8,92,250/-which would have not been deposited because he had already accepted an amount of Rs. 13 lacs in cash from the first informant but precautionary the first informant had withdrawn the amount from the bank so that the aforesaid cheque may not be encashed, the cheque was not honoured then sent a demand notice on 18-9-2003 in which he has admitted that he had received Rs. 9 lacs on 20-9-2003. Its reply was given by the first informant, thereafter, the applicant gave assurance to pay the amount of Rs. 13 lacs which he had received but the same has not been paid then the applicant had lodged an F. I. R. Heard Sri A. K. Misra, Sri S. K. Misra and Sri Amit Misra, learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. and Sri D. V. Singh and Sri A. R. Singh, learned Counsel for the complainant. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant: (I) That the alleged occurrence had taken place in the year 2003 but no F. I. R. was lodged immediately, thereafter, the F. I. R. is too much delayed, it has been lodged on 2-3-2005. (II) That the first informant played fraud with the applicant. He was having dishonest intention that is why he had issued a cheque of Rs. 8,92,250/-the same was deposited by the applicant in the Bank but it was dishonoured. (III) That its proper notice was given by the applicant to the first informant even then the amount of cheque was not paid by the first informant. Thereafter a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act has been filed by the applicant in the Court of the learned Magistrate for which the cognizance has been taken and the first informant has been summoned to face the trial. The allegation in respect of the payment of the aforesaid money is false and frivolous because the applicant has not received any amount, he was given assurance only and got executed a sale-deed from the applicant. (IV) That the applicant has not issued any receipt in respect of any money received and the dispute is absolutely of civil in nature, the same can be decided by a civil Court and the co-accused Manoj the son of the applicant has been released on bail by this Court on 23-7-2005 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11008 of 2005. (V) That the applicant is a law abiding person. He is an innocent person. Therefore, he may be released on bail. It is opposed by the learned A. G. A. and the learned Counsel for the complainant by submitting: (1) That the applicant has played fraud upon the first informant, he was having dishonest intention and he has misappropriated the amount of Rs. 13 lacs and he has executed a sale-deed of the land which had already sole by him to the other party by executing a registered sale-deed. (2) That the case of the applicant is distinguishable with the case of the co-accused Manoj because the allegation of execution of sale-deed as well as accepting of the money, is only against the applicant The co-accused Manoj was a witness of the sale-deed and in his presence the money was given to the applicant, in such a situation the applicant is not entitled for bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. , I am of the view that the case of the applicant is distinguishable with the case of the co-accused Manoj, who has been released on bail by this Court because the applicant is the main accused as he had executed the sale-deed and he had taken Rs. 13 lacs from the first informant, which has been misappropriated by him, the nature of the offence is grave and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail is refused.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY this application is rejected. Bail rejected. RAJES H .;