1. This order shall govern disposal of M.Cr.C. No.17934/2024 and M.Cr.C. No.17367/2024 as well. For the sake of convenience, facts of M.Cr.C. No.17934/2024 are being taken note of.

2. These are the first bail applications filed by the applicants under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail relating to FIR/Crime No.102 of 2024 dated 24.03.2024 registered at Police Station, Hanumana, District Mauganj (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC.

3. The Senior Counsel for the applicants submit that in the present case, without there being any basis, the present applicants are being prosecuted. It is contended by the counsel that a "Sahmati Patra" dated 25/05/2017 was executed between Janna widow of Pradyumn Singh, Baban Singh, Lalan Singh, Dadai Singh (complainant) and Rajkaran Singh. The aforesaid persons, agreed to hand over the land situated at Khasra No.10 ad measuring area 3.946 hectare and Khasra No.13 ad measuring area 8.025 hectare and out of total land, the agreement was in respect of 4 acres in Khasra No.10 and 6 acres in Khasra No.13, meaning thereby total 10 acres (4.032 hectare) was taken by the present applicants for a period of 15 years. After the said "Sahmati Patra", the order dated 10/08/2017 (Annexure D/8 of IA No.3793/2024) was issued and lease was granted in favour of the present applicants for a period of ten years. The issuance of said letter was further ensued in execution of agreement as well. As per the aforesaid lease, the applicants started mining operation. The complainant Dadai Singh Gond who was sitting on the fence for a period of more than 6 years, suddenly, moved an application before the Collector on 26/12/2023 and in the said application it was alleged by the complainant that he and the other members, had agreed for transaction pertaining to Khasra No.10/1/ka only, but no consent was given so far as Khasra No.13 was concerned. Accordingly, disputing the "Sahmati Patra" dated 25/05/20217, the said complaint was moved before the Collector.

4. The Collector upon taking cognizance of the complaint, passed an order dated 15/03/2024 whereby the Collector concluded that the lease was obtained on the basis of "Sahmati Patra" on which the signature of Rajkaran Singh was disputed and there was no consent in respect of Khasra No.13. After passing of the order impugned, the FIR was lodged by the complainant on 24/03/2024 and in the said FIR, the allegations of forgery and cheating were levelled against the present applicants.

5. Learned counsel contends that in the present case the FIR, on the face of it is merely a device to unnecessary harass and humiliate the present applicants.It is contended by the counsel that so far as execution of "Sahmati Patra" is concerned, the same is not a disputed fact. The complainant disputed the said "Sahmati Patra" only on the ground that the same was in respect of Khasra No.10/1/ka and not in respect of Khasra No.13 situated at village Sardaman, Tahsil Hanumana, District Mauganj.

6. Learned counsel contends that the Collector was approached by the complainant by way of an application dated 26/12/2023 which has been filed by the objectors Lalan Singh as Annexure O/6 with his objection and a perusal of the said complaint, would reveal that there was consent of the complainant and all other owners whose names are mentioned in the "Sahmati Patra" as regards handing over the said land to the present applicants. The only objection which was sought to be raised in the complaint that the owners had no intention to include Khasra No.13 in the "Sahmati Patra", nor the said "Sahmati Patra" was signed by one of the co-owner Rajkaran Singh. The said averment so made in the complaint to the Collector dated 26/12/2023 makes it crystal clear that so far as the execution of "Sahmati Patra" is concerned, it was executed by all the owners of the property and none of the owners made any complaint regarding forgery of their signatures and thumb impression, at no point of time. It is further important that the complainant Dadai Singh in his complaint dated 26/12/2023, did not dispute his signature as well, on the contrary, he disputed signature of Rajkaran Singh.

7. It is also contended by the Senior Counsel that the Collector, in a purely mechanical manner passed the order dated 15/03/2024 and ventured upon to cancel the lease of both the Khasras i.e. Khasra No.10/1/Ka and Khasra No.13. The Collector was required to apply his mind so far as Khasra No.10/1/Ka was concerned, neither Dadai Singh nor Rajkaran Singh or any other owners, ever disputed the "Sahmati Patra" so far as the same related to Khasra No.10/1/Ka. Thus, the said order which was passed in a capricious and high handed manner could not have been made basis to lodge the FIR against the present applicants. It is contended by the counsel that the FIR is apparently an offshoot of the order passed by the Collector dated 15/03/2024, hence, the present applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail. To support his contention learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ravindra Saxena Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2010) 1 SCC 684 and in the case of Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel and Ors. Vs. State of Gujrat and Anr. reported in (2020) 3 SCC 794.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that the charge-sheet in the matter has not been filed, therefore, at present stage, the applicants are not entitled for grant of bail inasmuch as, there are direct allegations of forgery as well as cheating which are evident from perusal of FIR. It is contended by the counsel that the present applicants duped people who were illiterate, resultanly they had to part with their hard earned property, hence, no case for grant of bail is made out.

9. Learned counsel for the objectors Shri Anil Khare - Senior Advocate and Shri Sankalp Kochar have submitted that the present applications filed by the applicants deserve to be dismissed. The present applicants forged signature of owner of the property. The owners of the property being illiterate were defrauded at the behest of the present applicants and at no point of time, the owner of the property were aware that on the basis of so called "Sahmati Patra" permission for mining lease was obtained on Khasra No.13 as well. It is contended by the counsel for objectors that the complainant Dadai Singh Gond first moved various applications before the authorities and those applications have been brought as Annexure O/4 and O/5 and perusal of the same reflects that the authorities were being apprised of the forgery which was committed by the present applicants. Learned counsel for the objectors while supporting the order of Collector dated 15/03/2024 (Annexure O/10) submitted that the Collector has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter. The present applicants were also given notice by the Collector. The present applicants submitted a reply as well, and after considering the rival stand, the Collector passed the detailed order in which he concluded that there was no consent of the land owners and their signatures were forged and even the illiterate owners who used to apply thumb impression, their signatures were made on the "Sahamati Patra", thus considering the aforesaid aspect, lease which was granted in favour of the applicants was cancelled and FIR was lodged against the present applicants. Accordingly, it is submitted by the counsel for objectors that the present applications for bail deserve to be dismissed.

10. No other point is pressed or argued by the parties.

11. Heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.

12. A perusal of the case diary reflects that the "Sahamati Patra" dated 25/05/2017 is the document which is being said to be forged by the present applicants. The said "Sahmati Patra" as per the complaint of the complainant Dadai Singh Gond dated 26/12/2023 (Annexure O/6) and also statement of Raj Karan Singh which are reproduced in the order dated 15/03/2024 (Annexure O/10) passed by the Collector, reflects that so far as Khasra No.10/1/Ka is concerned, none of the owners have made any objection. The objection is only in respect of Khasra No.13. Before the Collector, the statements of Rajkaran Singh, Baban Singh, Lalan Singh and complainant Dadai Singh were also recorded and the aforesaid statements clearly reveal that all the complainants stated that they were in the knowledge of the fact that the applicants were intending to move an application for mining of lease in respect of Khasra No.10/1/Ka ad measuring area 4 acres.

13. Thus, all these statements which find mention in the order of Collector, prima facie reflect that the dispute does not pertain to Khasra No.10/1/Ka, on the contrary, the same pertains to Khasra No.13. The complaint which was moved by Dadai Singh Gond dated 26/12/2023 before the Collector also reflects that the "Sahamati Patra" was signed by his mother late Janna who expired in the year 2022. In paragraph 1 of the complaint, it was alleged that signature of Rajkaran Singh on the "Sahmati Patra" was false, as Rajkaran Singh had not given the land on lease to present applicants. In paragraph 2, the averments regarding factum of death the mother of the complainant is mentioned. In paragraph 3 it is mentioned that the present applicants orally informed, complainant Dadai Singh that he was going to move an application for mining of lease in respect of Khasra No.10/1/ka and a map was also shown by the present applicants but land of Khasra No.13 was also included surreptitiously by the present applicants in collusion with the officials of the mining department. In paragraph 4, it was further stated that as per the "Sahmati Patra", Rs.1,00,000/- annualy was to be paid to the complainant and his brothers and the complainant in addition was assured payment of Rs.20,000/- per month as guard but both the aforesaid payments were not made and accordingly, it was stated in the complaint that while keeping the land owners in dark, Khasra No.13 was also added in "Sahmati Patra" and the lease was obtained. This application of the complainant dated 26/12/2023 reveal that the execution of the "Sahmati Patra" was not being disputed by the complainant but the complainant disputed the same in respect of Khasra No.13. The complainant in paragraph 7 of the same stated that the land is close to the house where the complainant resides and as a result of blasting there was likelihood of house of the complainant being damaged. In paragraphs 4 and 7 of the complainant moved by Dadai Singh Gond is reproduced as under:

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

14. A perusal of the aforesaid complainant, reflects that so far as mining operations are concerned, the complainant was aware that mining operations were being carried out on land situated at Khasra No.10/1/Ka and Khasra No.13 as well, therefore, the debatable issue in the present case is with regards in-action and silence at the behest of the complainant as well as other owners of the land for a period of 6 years. None of the land owners including complainant made any objection during the period of 6 years despite witnessing the mining operation which according to the complaint dated 26/12/2023 were at a distance of 10 mtrs. Raj Karan Singh in his statement before the Collector, has not disputed the aspect of handing over of land to the present applicants so far as the same related to Khasra No.10/1/Ka, however, he is disputing the signature on "Sahmati Patra". The statement of Raj Karan Singh which is reproduced in the order of Collector also reveal that Raj Karan Singh has expressed his no objection regarding handing over the property which was situated at Khasra No.10/1//Ka, thus, the order of the Collector, deals with the statement of the land owners, complainant- Dadai Singh, and other owners Raj Karan Singh, Baban Singh and Lalan Singh also. All of them have stated that they had given their consent for Khasra No.10/1/Ka, however they are disputing handing over of land which is situated at Khasra No.13 which is also mentioned in the "Sahmati Patra". Therefore, considering the aforesaid all aspect of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that so far as "Sahmati Patra" is concerned, the execution thereof was not unknown to the complainant and the other land owners and the mining operation on the land is also not a disputed aspect, thus, under the aforesaid peculiar circumstances, in-action on the part of the complainant as well as remaining land owners for a prolong period of 6 years, is an issue which requires sifting of evidence which is to be adduced by the prosecution as well as defence during course of trial.

15. Looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds it to be a fit case to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, the applications are allowed.

16. It is directed that in the event of arrest, applicants Rajkumar Khurana i n M.Cr.C. No.17934/2024 and Arunendra Pratap Singh in M.Cr.C. No.17367/2024 shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer for their appearance before him during course of investigation or before the Trial Court during course of trial, as the case may be.

17. None of the observations made in the order shall have bearing on merits of the case to be tried by the trial Court.

18. It is further directed that the applicants shall comply with the provisions enumerated under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.