Allowed

Sohan Lal Malhotra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Dec 2021BAIL/40232/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crimes under IPC sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384, 504, 506, 120B, and 448 attracted by parking dispute allegations raised after 12 years. Bail applied by 82-year-old applicant. High Court allowed bail on personal bond and two sureties with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount subject to specified conditions.

Sohan Lal Malhotra Vs State of U.P. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40232 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Sohan Lal Malhotra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abdul Majeed,Sufia Saba

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Sushil Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Sufia Saba, learned counsel assisted by Sri Mubashir Majeed, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Nafees Ahmad, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

A first information report was lodged against the applicant as Case Crime No. 81 of 2019 at Police Station-Bajriya District-Kanpur Shaher under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384, 504, 506, 120B,448 IPC.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, Kanpur Nagar on 07.09.2021.

¶8

The applicant is in jail since 03.09.2021 pursuant to the said F.I.R.

¶9

Shri Sushil Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant is senior citizen and is 82 years of age. The criminal case arises out of a parking dispute between the erstwhile vendor (applicant) and the purchaser of the flat (informant). The terms of parking were clearly laid out in the recitals contained in the sale deed which was executed 12 years ago. The issue is sought to be revived after 12 years. According to the applicant all formalities for sanction of the map had been

¶10

completed. No notice from the Kanpur Development Authority as regards any illegal constructions has been issued since the past 15 years when the building was first raised. The applicant does not have criminal history apart from this case. Lastly it is contended by the learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.

¶11

Shri Nafees Ahmad, learned A.G.A and Ms. Sufia Saba, learned counsel assisted by Sri Mubashir Majeed, learned counsel for the informant, could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Learned AGA does not dispute the fact that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶12

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶13

I see merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶14

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant-Sohan Lal Malhotra involved in Case Crime No. 81 of 2019 at Police StationBajriya District-Kanpur Nagar under Sections

¶16

420 IPC be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶17

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶18

The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶19

The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶20

The applicant 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶22

Order Date :- 9.12.2021 Nadeem

Sohan Lal Malhotra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sohan Lal Malhotra 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

Pawan @ Lali and Another Vs State of U.P.

Prem Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sachin Alias Sonu Gainda Vs State of U.P.

Ravi @ Thakur Kol Vs State of U.P.

Aditya Sonkar Vs State of U.P.

Prem Singh Vs State of U.P.