H.C. Mishra, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution, as also learned counsel for the complainant -opposite party No. 2. The petitioner has been made accused for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with C.P. Case No. 424 of 2009.
(2.) THE complaint was lodged by the authorized representative and Vice -President of M/s. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. stating therein that 47.55 acres of land bearing Plot No. 369, Khata No. 7, situated in Village -Girdharitand, P.S. -Pindrajora, was offered to M/s. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., by one Rajat Ghosh, Director of M/s. Subnal Supply & Construction Company for a consideration of Rs. 70,61,175/ -, which was required for the purpose of compensatory afforestation by M/s. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. It is stated in the complaint petition that the said Rajat Ghosh had undertaken to provide all the documents required for registry, including the power of attorney executed in his favour by the petitioner. On the basis of the documents the complainant believed that the said land belonged to the petitioner and the same was purchased by the complainant Company. Subsequently, it was found that the documents were forged. So far as this petitioner is concerned, it is stated that the petitioner had also sworn an affidavit stating that he is the descendant of khatiyani raiyat. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and there was no transaction directly between the petitioner and the complainant and whatever papers with respect to the land in question and the power of attorney were produced before the complainant, they were by Rajat Ghosh and Amit Kumar and actually they had executed the sale -deed in favour of the Company. Learned counsel has further submitted that as there is no allegation of any transaction between the petitioner and the Company, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed the offence as alleged. Learned counsel has accordingly, prayed for bail.
(3.) LEARNED A.P.P. for the State as also learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, have opposed the prayer for bail submitting that there is allegation against the petitioner also, as on the basis of the documents executed by the petitioner, the complainant was made to believe that the petitioner is the real owner of the land in question. It has also been submitted that the main accused Rajat Ghosh and Amit Kumar informed the complainant that the money, which was taken from the Company, was paid to the petitioner. It has also been pointed out that some civil suit is pending with respect to the land in question in the Civil Court, Bokaro. In the facts of this case, particularly, taking into consideration the fact that there was no dealing between the petitioner and the Company directly, nor any document was produced by the petitioner to the complainant, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner, Durga Prasad Jha, on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/ - (ten thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of Sri. Arjun Sao, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro, or his successor, in connection with C.P. Case No. 424 of 2009.;