Raj Beer Singh ORDER
Raj Beer Singh, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.
3. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 464 of 2022, under Sections - 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 506, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station - Cantt, District - Gorakhpur, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.
4. The informant has lodged first information report against Atul Kumar Tripathi (applicant), Chandra Mohan Tripathi, Ram Pravesh Singh, Maruti Nandan, Murari Sahani and Gokul Sahani, alleging that he was looking for purchasing a residential property and in that connection he came in contact of applicant Atul Kumar Tripathi, who has shown his residential property and price of the same was settled at 1.5 crore rupees. In January, 2021, informant has paid Rs. 5 lakhs as advance money to Atul Kumar Tripathi through a cheque and an agreement was executed between them. During talk regarding sale deed, along with Atul Kumar Tripathi, rest of the co-accused persons were also present and taking the informant into confidence, they took Rs.1,40,56,000/- on various dates from the informant. When the informant insisted for execution of sale deed, the accused persons started making excuses. Later on, the informant came to know that the accused persons were running a gang and they trap innocent persons and take money by playing cheating and fraud. It was alleged that the accused persons have prepared forged documents by keeping the informant in dark and took an amount of Rs.1,40,56,000/- from the informant and they have refused to return the said amount.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The residential property in question, having number 0088 situated at Kuda Ghat near AIIMS, Gorakhpur is owned by the applicant. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and the first information report was registered defying the reports of the Deputy S.P. and Additional S.P., wherein it was observed that dispute is civil in nature. The applicant has entered into an agreement on 23.09.2021 with Ram Pravesh Singh alias Bhola Singh to sell his property in consideration of Rs. 5,00,95,000/- with an advance payment of Rs. 5,000/- in cash. Said Ram Pravesh Singh alias Bhola Singh further deposited Rs. 8 lakhs in the account of applicant through R.T.G.S. from the informant Avinash Rai on 13.10.2021. Simultaneously, Ram Pravesh Singh alias Bhola Singh has handed over three post dated cheques totalling amount of Rs. 71,50,000/- without the name of beneficiary as token of goodwill gesture. When applicant reached at Registrar Office for executing the sale deed, he was shocked to see that sale deed was prepared by Avinash Rai showing fictitious payment, which was not received by him. The informant has also threatened him to execute the sale deed. Applicant has made several complaints to the police. The informant has also filed three cases No. 7731 of 2022, 7722 of 2022 and 7723 of 2022, under Section - 138 N.I. Act. It was submitted that the applicant had never entered into any agreement with the informant to sell his residential property nor any negotiation have taken place in that connection. Earlier applicant has approached this Court for quashing of the first information report, wherein matter was referred to mediation and interim relief was granted in favour of applicant but the informant managed submission of charge-sheet against the applicant and co-accused persons.
6. It is further submitted that payment of Rs. 2 lakhs was made by informant towards purchase of electrical goods from the shop of applicant for which bill was issued. The only role of applicant shown in the investigation is that he has received payment of Rs. one lakh but the same was made in another context. One criminal case and two civil suits are pending against the informant. It is further submitted that investigation is already complete and thus, the presence of applicant is not required for investigation purposes. It was pointed out that applicant is seriously ill and he is suffering from piles and he has developed serious complications. Criminal history of applicant has duly been explained. Learned counsel for applicant has referred case of Sone Lal and 5 Others Vs. State (Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5948 of 2024) and submitted that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicant.
7. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that applicant has entered into an agreement with informant for selling his residential property against consideration of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- and a total amount of Rs. 1,40,56,000/- has been paid by the informant to the applicant and co-accused persons. Substantial part of payment has been made in favour of applicant and his son Marutinandan. The alleged agreement dated 30.09.2020 was entered by the applicant Atul Kumar Tripathi with Chandra Mohan Tripathi with malafide intention in order to cheat the informant. Neither the sale deed of the property was executed in favour of informant nor his amount was returned back and that the informant was cheated in the tune of Rs.1,40,56,000/-.
8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
9. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, MANU/SC/1021/2010 : 2010:INSC:843 : (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.
10. In the instant matter it appears from record that main accused is applicant Atul Kumar Tripathi, who has offered his property for sale to the informant and executed agreement of sale in favour of the informant for selling his residential property against consideration of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- and in pursuance to the same a total amount of Rs. 1,40,56,000/- was paid by the informant but neither sale deed was executed nor the amount of informant was returned back. It has been shown that Rs. one lakh were transferred to the account of Atul Kumar Tripathi on 01.01.2021, Rs. one lakh were transferred into account of Tripathi Electronic, run by applicant, on 30.06.2021 and Rs. one lakh were transferred on 28.06.2021. On 13.10.2021 Rs. 8 lakhs were transferred into account of applicant Atul Kumar Tripathi in his bank account in Union Bank, Rs. one lakh were transferred into account of Maruti Nandan Tripathi son of applicant. Similarly various amount were transferred into account of co-accused Chandra Mohan Tripathi, Ram Pravesh Singh, Murari alias Murali and Balveer Kumar alias Ballu at the instance of of the applicant Atul Kumar Tripathi. Some amount was paid in cash and videography of the same was prepared. It was shown that before executing the agreement of sale in favour of informant, applicant has already executed an agreement to sell the property in question in favour of co-accused Chandra Mohan Tripathi. Further, after executing agreement in favour of informant, applicant has executed another agreement in favour of co-accused Ram Pravesh. It was also alleged that forgery was committed while opening a bank account. From the prosecution version and statement of informant, it appears that informant was cheated in a calculated way and malafide intention on part of applicant is writ large. So far this fact is concerned that the arrest of applicant was stayed during investigation, it is apparent that the arrest of the applicant was stayed due to the reason that matter was referred to mediation but there is nothing to show that applicant made any sincere effort to settle the dispute or return the amount of applicant. In view of nature of accusations, it could not be said at this stage that matter is purely civil in nature. The anticipatory bail application of co-accused Maruti Nandan Tripathi alias Maruti Nandan has already been rejected by the coordinate Bench of this Court, however one of the ground of rejection is that the same was filed directly before this Court, without approaching the Session Court. It appears that role of co-accused Chandra Mohan Tripathi and Ram Pravesh Singh is distinguished from the applicant, who is kingpin of the entire incident.
11. Considering nature of accusations, role of applicant and all attending facts of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, no case for anticipatory bail is made out. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application is rejected.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.