Prashant Kumar, J. - (1.) ANTICIPATORY bail application filed by Petitioner Sudhanshu Trivedi @ Sudhanshu Kumar Trivedi in connection with Bariyatu P.S. Case No. 106 of 2010 ( G.R. No. 1588 of 2010) pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi is moved by Sri. P.C. Tripathy, Sr. Advocate and opposed by Sri Amitabh, learned Additional P.P. and Sri. Nilesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the informant.
(2.) IT is submitted by Sri. Tripathy that the Petitioner is the owner of Flat No. C/1 of Krishna Asthal Apartment which he purchased from builder Nizamuddin Ansari. It is submitted that originally the said land owned by his father namely Late Jagdish Trivedi, who gave power of attorney to Sri Arvind Kumar for sale of the said land. It is then submitted that Arvind Kumar sold and transferred the property to one Islam Ansari and Islam Ansari sold it to Nizamuddin, the builder of Krishna Asthal Apartment. It is submitted that since Late Jagdish Trivedi has sold the land to Islam Ansari, therefore he had no right, title and interest to sale flat in question to Aruradha Trivedi , vendor of informant. It is submitted that a title suit is also pending regarding the ownership of the flat in question. Accordingly, it is submitted that the dispute between the parties is of civil in nature, hence Petitioner is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. On the other hand, learned Additional P.P. and Sri. Nilesh Kumar, appearing for the informant submit that Annexure -2 filed by the Petitioner shows that the Flat in question has not been sold to Petitioner by Nizamuddin because the said Flat was given to Petitioner's father Late Jagdish Trivedi in pursuance of development agreement. It is submitted that Annexure -2 further shows that Petitioner has not paid any money to builder Nizamuddin. They further show that Flat No. C/1 of Krishna Asthal Apartment allotted to Sri Jagdish Trivedi as per development agreement. They further submit that said Jagdish Trivedi transferred aforesaid Flat to Anuradha Trivedi by executing sale deed dated 7.7.2008 (Annexure -C). Under the said circumstance, the question of transferring aforesaid flat to Petitioner by Nizamuddin in the year 2009 does not arise. It is submitted that Petitioner illegally entered in the house of informant on the basis of some forged and sham documents, thus he has taken the law in his own hand, hence, he does not deserve to be released on anticipatory bail.
(3.) HAVING heard the submission, I have gone through the record of the case. In the supplementary affidavit dated 14.1.2011 Petitioner stated at paragraph Nos. 3,4,5 and 6 that Petitioner's father issued power of attorney in favour of Arvind Kumar for sale of land and Arvind Kumar transferred the land to one Islam Ansari and Islam Ansari again transferred it to Nizamuddin Ansari, but later on in the same affidavit, at paragraph No. 9 , Petitioner stated that his father entered into development agreement with said Nizamuddin on 25.6.2005 and gave a letter to Nizamuddin on 27.2.2009 for transferring three flats in the name of his two sons, namely, Saroj Kumar Trivedi and Sudhanshu Kumar Trivedi. Aforesaid statement given by Petitioner contradicts his earlier statement and also contradicts his statement that he purchased said flat from Nizamuddidng by paying him Rs. 13,74,000/ -. Aforesaid statement made by Petitioner makes the case of opposite party more believable, who claims that three flats i.e. Flat Nos. A/1, C/1 and C/3 given to father of Petitioner by the builder as per development agreement dated 25.6.2005, who in his turn, transferred Flat No. C -1 to Smt. Anuradha Trivedi vide Annexure -2. The aforesaid facts discussed herein above, prima facie, show that Petitioner in league with Md. Nizamuddin has manufactured some documents disputing the title of Smt. Anuradha Trivedi Vendor of informant. Thus, in my view, prima facie, offence made out against Petitioner.;