Anticipatory Bail Granted in Land Dealings Dispute.


09 June 2025 Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property >> Criminal Law   |   Forgery >> Criminal Law  

In the matter of Tayyab Haider Siddique & Another v/s State of Maharashtra., the court grants anticipatory bail to Accused No. 1 (the Applicant) in a case involving alleged cheating and forgery related to land transactions. The Applicant, apprehending arrest in FIR No. 553 of 2022, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. The FIR, filed in 2022, accused the Applicant of offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, and 479 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

The prosecution's case centers on allegations that the Applicant, a Merchant Navy sailor, along with the First Informant (Complainant) and a common friend, invested in three land parcels in Maharashtra between 2017 and 2018. The Applicant allegedly introduced them to Accused No. 2, a land broker, who facilitated the purchases. The First Informant claimed to have paid substantial cash amounts (totaling $50,000, equivalent to Rs. 32.25 lakhs) to the Applicant for these transactions, in addition to cheque payments made to Accused No. 2. The total alleged payment by the First Informant for the land was Rs. 65.25 lakhs, with Vinod Shukla, the common friend, also purportedly paying a similar amount.

 
 

The core of the dispute arose when the First Informant discovered that the purchased lands were tribal lands, subject to transfer restrictions without prior government permission, and thus their names could not be mutated in the land revenue records. This led to the filing of the FIR in September 2022.

The Applicant's advocate argued that the FIR was filed with an unexplained delay of 4-5 years and that the Applicant's role was limited to introducing the parties and facilitating initial steps. It was further contended that there was no substantial evidence to corroborate the alleged cash payments to the Applicant, and that the First Informant's wife, an architect, had conducted due diligence on the land. The defense also asserted that the dispute was primarily civil in nature, stemming from a failed business arrangement, and that the allegations of forgery were solely against Accused No. 2, who had already been granted bail.

Conversely, the prosecution and the intervenor (First Informant) vehemently opposed the bail, arguing that the Applicant was the principal conspirator who knowingly misrepresented the nature of the land and actively participated in orchestrating fraudulent transactions. They claimed the Applicant was an indirect beneficiary of the funds and that his custodial interrogation was necessary for recovery of the misappropriated money.

After considering the arguments and perusing the record, the Court found several points in favor of the Applicant. It noted the unexplained delay in filing the FIR, the lack of concrete material evidence to support the alleged cash payments to the Applicant, and the inconsistencies in the amounts claimed. The Court observed that the Applicant was also a purchaser in the transactions and that the dispute appeared to be a failed business arrangement and land transaction primarily civil in nature, with criminal proceedings possibly initiated to overcome limitation issues in civil remedies.

Referring to Supreme Court judgments, the Court emphasized that criminal proceedings are not for the realization of disputed dues. Given that Accused No. 2 had already been granted bail, and finding no necessity for the Applicant's custodial interrogation, the Court granted anticipatory bail to the Applicant.

The bail was granted subject to conditions, including executing a personal recognizance bond of Rs. 1,00,000, reporting to the Investigating Officer, disclosing relevant material, furnishing address and mobile numbers, depositing the passport with the Trial Court, and not leaving Maharashtra without court permission. The Applicant was also directed not to misuse liberty, influence witnesses, or tamper with evidence.


Section 438., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  

Section 34., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 420., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 465, Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 467., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 468., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 479., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860