R. K. Kripal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRCA No. 91 of 2016 • R. K. Kripal S/o Sonuram Kripal Aged About 53 Years SubDivisional Officer, R/o Tokpal, Distt. Bastar Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station Pathalgaon, Distt. Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For the applicant :

Dr. N.K. Shukla, Sr. Advocate with Ms. K. Tripti Rao, Advocate.

For the Respondent :

Mr. Anupam Dubey, Dy.A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 29.02.2016

1. Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 296 of 2015 registered at Police Station Pathalgaon, Distt. Jashpur (C.G) for the offences punishable under section 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-BIPC, the applicant has filed this application u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail.

2. As per the prosecution case, the applicant who was working as a Tahsildar was also officiating as SubRegistrar at the relevant time when the sale deed dated 12.08.2013 was executed by Chamru in favour of coaccused Manish Agrawal. It is the case of prosecution that Chamru though was not an ab-original tribe the land which belongs to Harihar Singh who is an aboriginal tribe was sold and got the sale deed executed in the name of Chamru and thereafter Chamru executed the

sale deed in favour of Manish Agrawal at the connivance of the applicant and co-accused Manish Agrawal.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was discharging the job of Tahsildar cum SubRegistrar and he only relied and worked on 17 point enquiry which was submitted by the then Patwari Blasidiyus Toppo wherein it was shown that Chamru was the recorded owner. He further submits that the applicant being Tahsildar discharged the job of SubRegistrar and could not have refused the registration of the sale deed and accordingly discharged his official duty, therefore, no criminality can be attributed.

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail.

5. Perused the case diary and document. The sale deed was executed while the applicant was discharging the job of Sub-Registrar. The sale deed contains the 17 point enquiry which is signed by Blasidiyus Toppo and the sale deed was shown to be executed by Chamuru in favour of Manish Agrawal, therefore, taking into totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to allow this bail application.

6. Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid offence, he shall be released on bail by the officer arresting him on his executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer arresting him or the concerned Investigating Officer. The applicant shall also abide by the following conditions :-

(i) that he shall make himself available for interrogation before the investigating officer as and when required;

(ii) that he shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer; (iii) that he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and (iv) that he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

C.c. as per rules.

Sd/- GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE Rao