Allowed

Babulal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Sept 2020BAIL/23811/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application arising from an allegation of fabricating a sale deed regarding a disputed property, the court, ignoring a plea of denial due to minority in 1966 and citing pandemic conditions, granted bail without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Allow bail on personal bond and two sureties; conditional relief pending verification and subject to execution of short-term bail.

Babulal Vs State of U.P. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

Reserved on 9.9.2020 Delivered on 16.9.2020

¶3

Court No. - 70

¶4

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23811 of 2020

¶5

Applicant :- Babulal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Lochan Shukla,Arya Suman Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ikshwaku Srivastava,Pradeep Chauhan

¶6

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant Shri Ikshwaku Srivastava and Shri Pradeep Chauhan, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A.

¶8

The allegations in the First Information Report are that mother of the informant purchased the house in dispute on 29.5.1965 from one Vishnu Prasad and her name was duly mutated in Nagar Nigam.The applicant, who is clerk in civil court Varanasi, is alleged to have concocted a sale deed dated 7.10.1966 regarding the same land in the name of one Govind Lal Pal and on the basis of same mutation was sought in the Nagar Nigam by the aforesaid vendor.The informant filed objection stating the his mother has never executed sale deed dated 7.10.1966 in favour of Govind Lal Pal.On inquiry from the office of Sub-registrar the sale deed dated 7.10.1966 was found to be a fabricated document. The allegation against the applicant is that he has concocted the aforesaid sale deed dated 7.10.1966.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.In the year 1966 he was minor and he cannot be

¶10

¶11

said to be involved in the alleged offence. Applicant is an old man suffering from diabetes, blood pressure and arthritis. He has been implicated in this case only because he is tenant of the disputed house and for pressurizing him to vacate the house, the present First Information Report has been lodged against him. He is in jail since 18.3.2020.Supplementary affidavit has been filed by the counsel for the applicant bringing on record criminal history of five cases against the applicant and has submitted that only one case is related to him and other cases are lodged in the name of the accuseds, who have similar names as of the applicant but applicant is not involved in those cases. They relate to different accused persons.

¶12

Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that applicant has criminal history of case crime no. 102 of 2016 under sections 143, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (10) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Cholapur, District- Varanasi wherein he was absconding and proceedings under sections 82 Cr.P.C. has been initiated against him by the court below. Applicant is a criminal and has criminal history of eight cases including the present case. Applicant has forged the alleged sale deed and has obtained electricity connection by fraud in his tenanted premises. Applicant had approached for anticipatory bail before this court.He has committed alleged offence being an interested party, since he is tenant of the disputed property, therefore he does not deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the

¶14

¶15

applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶16

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, spreading of novel corona virus in jails, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶17

Let the applicant, Babu lal, who is involved in Case Crime No. 730 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C, Police Station-Cantt. , District- Varanasi, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶18

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶19

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶20

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶21

In case the applicant has been enlarged on short term bail as per the order of committee constituted

¶22

¶23

under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court his bail shall be effective after the period of short term bail comes to an end.

¶24

The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶28

Order Date :- 16.9.2020 Atul kr. sri.

Babulal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babulal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Yaseen Vs State of U.P.

Sovind Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Vikram Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Jasveer Maan Vs State of U.P.

Asharaf Ali @ Chhote Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Farhan Vs State of U.P.