IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11019 of 2010 1.SHYAM LAL CHAUHAN 2.Ghamu Chauhan 3.Ramu Chauhan …………..Petitioners Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR O.P. ----------- For the petitioners. : Mr. D.K.Sinha,Sr. Advocate. Mr. Tribhuwan Narayan, Advocate For the informant : Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Rajiv Kimar Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Ajay Mishra, A.P.P. ------ 3 12-5-2010 Mr. D.K. Sinha, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Ajay Mishra,learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State, and Mr. Jitendra Singh , learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the informant/complainant have been heard at length. 2. Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Semari P.S. Case no. 153 of 2009 dated 1.11.2009 registered under sections 420, 465, 468, 120 B and 471 of the Indian penal Code. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the entire criminal prosecution of the petitioners is based on a civil dispute. It is stated that petitioners along with co- accused Bedamu Chauhan filed a Title Suit No. 123 of 1987 in the court of learned Munsif, Bhabhua in which Swami - 2 - Sheodharmanadji Maharaj @ Deoshankar Tiwary, deceased Guru of the informant/complainant, was one of the defendant. Aforesaid Title Suit filed by the petitioners and others was finally dismissed ,whereafter petitioners and others filed Title Appeal No. 13 of 1991 which was finally heard and allowed by a judgment dated 19.3.1993 by the learned lower appellate court. Against the aforesaid appellate judgment dated 19.3.l993 Swami Shivdharmanandji Maharaj preferred Second Appeal No. 169 of 1993 before this Court in which the petitioners were impleaded as respondent nos. 1,2&3 respectively . During the pendency of the aforesaid second appeal, the defendant appellant no.1 Shivdharmanandji Maharaj @ Deoshankar Tiwiary died on 20.3.1999. After his death I.A. No. 7162 of 1999 was filed by co- accused Swami Triyoganand Maharaj @ Ram Narayan Singh @ Ram Narayan Bind. I.A. No. 8089 of 1999 was filed by Mahanth Satyanandnandji Maharaj @ Ram Jee Singh. The High Court finally by an order contained in annexure-3 allowed both the I.A. filed by two persons claiming to be disciples of Swami Shiv Dharmanandji Maharaj (deceased) and it was directed that both of them shall be heard at the time of final hearing of the second appeal. - 3 - 4. It is further submitted by Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners have nothing to do with the heirs ship of original defendant no.1 Swami Shivdharmanandji Maharaj. The claim of discipleship is between the complainant and co-accused Swami Triyognand Maharaj @ Ram Narayan Singh, and that issue , being a questioin of fact , is again required to be decided by a competent civil court on the basis of pleadings of the parties and evidence produced by them. In the whole complaint petition, which is basis of FIR vide Annexure-1 only allegation against the petitioners is that they in collusion with co-accused Ram Narayan Bind @ co-accused Triyognandji Maharaj attempted to get their name mutated with respect to certain disputed properties, but admittedly mutation has not taken place in their favour. Therefore, it is submitted that even according to the FIR vide Annexure-1 entire dispute is civil in nature between the parties and petitioners cannot be said to have committed any criminal offence. 5. Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/informant as also learned Additional Public prosecutor have strongly opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. Singh, - 4 - learned counsel for the informant, pointed out that as a matter of fact after death of Swami Shivdharmananji Maharaj on 20.3.1999 complainant /informant Satyanandji Maharaj, being his Chela, was given Chadar Mahanthi after observing the required formalities for the same in presence of other members of Ashram of deceased Guru. He submitted that co-accused Triyoganandji Maharaj @ Ram Narayan Bind had created a forged document of Chadar Mahanthi and fraudulently has started claiming that he is the successor of deceased Shivdharmanandji Maharaj, appellant no.1 in the second appeal pending before the High Court. He further pointed out that order regarding substitution was passed by the High Court on 24.2.2009 vide Annexure-3 to the petition, but prior to that also some petitions were filed before the Revenue Authorities claiming therein that Swami Triyoganandji Maharaj @ Ram narayan Singh is the successor of deceased Swami Shivdharmanandji Maharaj. It was also highlighted by Mr. Singh that in view of such fraudulent petition having been filed before the Executing Court an inquiry was conducted in terms of section 340 Cr.P.C. and a separate complaint petition has been filed in terms of section 195 (1) (b)(ii) Cr.P.C. for committing forgery in a proceeding before the court. On these pleas it was - 5 - urged that the petitioners are not entitled to have the privilege of anticipatory bail. 6. After hearing the parties and after considering the materials available on record, it is apparent that entire dispute is regarding certain properties of the math of which late Swami Shivdharmanandji Maharaj was a Mahanth. Admittedly the complainant/informant as also co-accused Triyoganandji Maharaj are separately claiming to be legal heirs of deceased Swami Shivdharmanandji Maharaj and that issue is required to be decided either in a separate civil suit or in the second appeal pending before this Court. Apparently petitioners are not alleged to have executed any deed for transfer of any property and no order has been passed in their favour on the basis of some petitions filed by them before the revenue authorities and further more the petitioners are parties in the title suit as also in the second appeal. 7. For the reasons stated above, and in view of the fact that dispute between the parties is civil in nature, in the event of their arrest or surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks from today, the above named petitioners shall be enlarge on bail on furnishing bail bond s of Rs. 25,000/- - 6 - (twenty five thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M, Buxar in connection with the above noted case, subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. and subject to further conditions : (a) That one of the bailors must be Govt. servant or close family member of the petitioners who will file an affidavit in the court below showing his/her relationship with the petitioners. (b) That petitioners shall make regular pairvi in the court below in the present case either by appearing themselves or through representation by his lawyer on each and every dates, and if on two consecutive dates petitioners fail to make pairvi, then the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bond of the petitioners. ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J. ) M.Rahman