ORDER
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner, who is accused for the offence under Sections 323, 341, 386, 392 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant case is placed entirely on false and concocted allegations and, even as admitted by the complainant himself in the complaint petition, the same complainant had filed a complaint case against the petitioner for the offence under Section 417 of the IPC in which the petitioner was granted bail and being frustrated, the complainant has filed the present com-plaint petition only to harass the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel adds that the original grudge of the complainant against the petitioner is that the petitioner happens to be a contender in the matter of acquisition of a piece of land in prime locality. The complainant asserts that he had entered into an agreement of sale of the land with one of the previous landlords. The petitioner on the other hand, had also acquired the same property by virtue of an agreement entered into with another co-owner. Both the rival co-owners of the property had contested a civil litigation in the Courts and the decision went in favour of the petitioner’s vendors. The complainant never came into possession of the lands, rather it is the petitioner, who has been in possession of the lands and in this background, it is only for the purpose of applying pressure upon the petitioner to relinquish his claim that the instant case has been filed. Learned counsel adds further that the allegations in the complaint are totally wild and absurd inasmuch as while the complainant claims that the petitioner had offered a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) for purchasing peace with the complainant, on the other hand he alleged that the same person, who had made the offer of the hefty amount, had snatched away his gold chain of meager value. This, according to the learned Counsel, is totally absurd and unbelievable.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner on the ground that the averments in the complaint petition, specifically make out the offences for which cognizance has been taken by the Court below and the petitioner has not made out any case for grant of anticipatory bail.
6. Admittedly, a civil litigation is pending in respect of the piece of land in which both the parties are interested and the complainant in particular, has shown keenness to acquire the property by any means and in this, the petitioner has gained in the first round. Earlier, on similar allegations the complainant had filed a case against the petitioner in which cognizance was taken for the offence under Section 417 of the IPC only.
7. Regard being had to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner, above named, is directed to surrender himself before the Court below within 15 days from the date of this order and on his furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No. 647 of 2007 along with his written undertakings in terms of provision under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure he shall be released on bail.