Allowed

Smt .Beena Devi and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Aug 2021ABAIL/6091/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed an anticipatory bail application, holding that the FIR was grossly delayed and arose from a civil dispute over property succession. The court found no locus standi for the informant to file an FIR in these criminal allegations.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till submission of charge sheet; applicants to appear before court on filing of charge-sheet and must produce court order online.

Smt .Beena Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6091 of 2021 Applicant :- Smt .Beena Devi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Annapurna Devi

¶3

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶5

This is an application of the anticipatory bail given by the applicants Smt. Beena Devi and Phool Singh , in Case Crime No. 1731 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C., P.S.- Kavinagar, District - Ghaziabad.

¶6

The first information report version is that the applicants obtained the succession certificate in respect of their son who was missing from long period. The succession certificate was obtained in October, 2017 and thereafter, the house of the son was sole by them in August, 2018. The first information report version is that the accused persons obtained the said succession certificate behind the back of his son's wife and daughter just to grab his property. Therefore, the first information report was lodged on 16.12.2020 by one Ashok Kumar who happens to be the son-in-law of the applicants.

¶7

The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that in respect of the house which was sold a suit for cancellation of the sale deed has already been filed by Krishna Devi and Bhavya Singh who are the wife and daughter of said Arvind Singh, the son of the applicants. Submission is that the informant is the son-in-law of the applicant and he had no reason to lodge any first information report in respect of the sale deed which was well within the knowledge of the affected persons who have already filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed. Further submission is that the said first information report was lodged after about 20 months from the date of execution of the sale deed and after 11 months from the date of filing of the suit for cancellation of the sale deed. It has been submitted that the allegations are of purely civil nature and only to harass the applicants, the false implication of the applicants have been made, therefore, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that applicants have no criminal history and applicants are prepared to furnish surety and bond, there is no

¶8

possibility of their either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the evidence, therefore, applicants are entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and have submitted that the daughter of said Arvind Singh has given statement in support of the first information report and s such, the anticipatory bail application cannot be allowed.

¶10

In view of the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the threat perception which is apparent in the F.I.R. as alleged in the bail application and the fact that a suit for cancellation of the sale deed was already filed almost one year before from the date of lodging of the first information report; the first information report is grossly delayed and has been registered after taking recourse of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.; the allegations relate with existence of the civil dispute between the parties and the informant has no locus-standi to lodge FIR, as such, I find it to be a fit case in which anticipatory bail may be granted to the applicants. Hence the anticipatory bail application is allowed till submission of charge sheet only.

¶11

In the event of arrest, the applicants namely Smt. Beena Devi and Phool Singh be released on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 1731 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C., P.S.- Kavinagar, District - Ghaziabad, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer /C.J.M./ Court of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶12

1)The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶13

2)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 or tamper with the evidence;

¶14

3)The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶15

4)In default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officers shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.

¶16

In case of filing of charge-sheet they shall appear before the court concerned for suitable orders according to section 438(3) Cr.P.C. and other condition which may be imposed by the Magistrate or the court concerned.

¶17

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

¶18

The applicants are directed to produce a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today.

¶19

With the aforesaid observations, the anticipatory bail application is finally disposed of .

¶20

Order Date :- 17.8.2021 sailesh

Smt .Beena Devi and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt .Beena Devi and Another 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish Sindhi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajendra Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Gyanendra and Another Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Verma and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.

Amit @ Raki Yadav Vs State of Up and Another

Gaurav Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another