Virendra Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 70

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 159 of 2020

Applicant :- Virendra Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Lochan Shukla,Anil Kumar Singh,Fuzail Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kamal Krishna (Senior Advocate),Shashi Bhushan Kunwar

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

List revised. None appears on behalf of the informant.

¶6

Heard Shri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that applicant no.2, Kaushal Kumar Singh and applicant no.4, Sekh Abdulla have been granted regular bail,therefore anticipatory bail is not being pressed for them.Regarding applicant no.1, Virendra Singh and applicant no.3, Abdulla Khan, the order is being passed.

¶8

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant no.1 Virendra Singh and applicant no.3 Abdulla Khan, with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 412 of 2019, under Sections 419,420,467,468,471,409 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali District- Ballia, during pendency of trial.

¶9

The allegations in the FIR are that the applicants and other co-accused persons in collusion with the employees of registration office have concocted fraudulent sale deeds and after removing the genuine ones replaced them by the fraudulent ones. Thereafter they tried to grab the properties of the real purchasers of the property and inquiry was made and it was found that 7 sale deeds of this nature have been manipulated.

¶10

Counsel for the applicant has submitted that FIR has been lodged after due inquiry but none of the accused persons were heard during the inquiry. On 27.03.1981 he has purchased the property and

¶11

was duly recorded in the revenue records.

¶12

Earlier the inquiry was ordered and the disputed sale deeds were found to be correct by the SubRegistrar, Sadar, Ballia. Thereafter a three member committee was constituted and it submitted its report stating that the sale deeds in dispute are doubtful. One co-accused, Sheikh Abdulla, has been granted bail by the court below. The applicants have been implicated falsely in this case. they have no criminal history to their credit .Applicants have definite apprehension of their arrest by the police.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of applicants for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶14

Hence the applicants are directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 and order dated 22.05.2020 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.2609 of 2020. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶15

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and his antecedents, the applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

¶16

Let the applicant no.1 Virendra Singh and applicant no.3 Abdulla Khan involved in the aforesaid crime be be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶17

The applicants shall not leave India during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶18

The applicants shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned trial Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned trial Court.

¶19

That the applicants 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶20

The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶21

In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail, the trial Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

¶22

The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶23

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶24

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶25

Order Date :- 19.11.2020 Atul kr. sri.

Virendra Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarvesh @ Tillu Vs State of U.P.

Nakul Vs State of U.P.

Salman Qadeer Vs State of U.P.

Preetam Singh Vs State of U.P.

Brijesh Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Savita Vs State of U.P.