Jaya Roy, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
(2.) THE petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 467/468/471/120B and 506 of the I.P.C. The prosecution case as alleged in the complaint petition dated 24.9.2011, filed by one Shatrughan Prasad Singh, in brief is that one Chandi Prasad Mahato who is the son and legal heir of Late Bhusiya Mahatain recorded tenant of the land within Mouza No. 8, Saraidhella Khata No.102 situated at Murli Nagar and the complainant is the Power of attorney holder of said Chandi Prasad Mahato and Nanda Devi, vide registered Power of Attorney dated 5.10.2007. It is further alleged that the petitioner creating nuisance on the land of said Bhusia Mahatain by fictitious claim and by using criminal force to grab the land through Dungia Mahatain and after knowing about the aforesaid Power of Attorney in favour of the complainant, the petitioner and others demanded Rangdari of Rs.4,00,000/- from the complainant for which the complainant lodged the present case i.e. C.P. Case No. 1827 of 2011 under Sections 120B/167/467/468/471/506 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and three others which was pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. It is further alleged in the complain petition that in this connection one C.P. Case No. 1655/09 was filed earlier under Sections 387/419/420/467/468/471/./506 and 120B of I.P.C. against the said accused person Padan Lochan Mahto and five other. It is further alleged in C.P. Case No. 1827/2011 that Budhu Mahto the main recorded tenant died leaving behind only daughter Bhusia Mahatain only legal heir of his property and Chandi Prasad Mahto and Nanda Devi are son and daughter of said Bhusia Mahatain. Complain petition further revils that order sheet dated 11.10.90 in mutation case No. 6(11)90-91 it is very clear that Jamabandi record was opened in sole name of Bhusia Mahtain and on that time father of the petitioner Hulash Mahto became son of Late Bhusia Mahatain and sold the land of Khata No.102. In another order sheet dated 6.7.90 in mutation case No. 486-11/1990-91 it is clear that Late Hulash Mahto father of the petitioner became son of Late Budhu Mahto (original Recorded tenant) belonging to Khata No. 102 Plot No. 2808. Main allegation in the complain petition about the petitioner is that he is creating nuisance and using criminal force and disturbing possession of the complaint and demanded Rs.4,00,000/-( Four Lakhs) from the complaint. It is further alleged that on 10.9.11 complainant and witnesses went to the house of the accused No. 1 Dubai @ Durai Murmu ( Halka Karamchari Dhanbad) at 9 A.M. The petitioner was present there the complainant asked about the foul game played by them both the persons became furious, and assaulted the complaint and threaten to take away his life. The prosecution case is further is that earlier the complainant of the instant case had lodged another complaint case before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad which was registered as Com Case No. 1655 of 2009 under Sections 387/419/420/467/468/471/./506 and 120B of I.P.C.
(3.) MR. R.S. Mazumdar the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence as stated in the complaint petition and the real fact behind the occurrence is that the complainant has falsely implicated the present petitioner in this case in order to grab the petitioners purchased land. That Title Suit being Title Suit No. 119 of 2009 in pending between the petitioner( who is defendant no.4 in the Suit) and plaintiffs are Chandi Prasad Mahto ( Grand son of original recorded tenant Budhu Mahto) and Smt. Nanda Mahatain (daughter of recorded tenant Bhusia Mahatain and grand daughter of recorded that Budhu Mahto) which is now pending in the court of Subordinate Judge Ist, Dhanbad (Annexure-3) and the complaint in the Complaint Case Shatrughan Prasad Singh who is registered power of attorney holder (dated 5.10.2007) from Chandi Prasad Mahto and Nanda Mahatain are the plaintiffs of Title Suit No. 119 of 2009 and from the above fact prima-facie it appears that it is a case of Civil dispute and as such the petitioner is entitled to get Anticipatory bail. MR. Mazumdar further submits that in revisional survey settlement, record of right published in the year 2007 in the name of the petitioner with respect of the lands of Khata No. 102 of Mouza Seraidhella No.8. Chandi Prasad Mahto (plaintiff of Title Suit No. 119 of 2009) filed an objection under Section 87 of C.N.T. Act before the settlement Officer, Dhanbad vide case No. 2760 of 2007 and that was dismissed after full consideration by the order dated 22.9.2009 by Revenue Officer, Dhanbad (Annexure-5). The learned counsel submits that in view of the facts and circumstances stated above the petitioner is entitled to get the privilege of Anticipatory bail. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 has submitted that complaint petition clearly reveals as to how the petitioner and other accused persons have dishonestly got their names entered in Jamabandi No.102 Khata No.102 of Mouza Sareidhella No.8 which was continuing in the name of Budhu Mahto and Bhusia Mahatain as such the petitioner are not entitled to get anticipatory bail from this Hon'ble Court.;