Allowed

Prem Chandra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC26 Aug 2022/5553/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail application filed by Prem Chandra in a cheating and forgery case involving property dispute, citing lack of criminal antecedents and fulfillment of bail conditions without expressing opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions not to tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses and appear on trial dates.

Prem Chandra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5553 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Prem Chandra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajat Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shashi Bhushan Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajat Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashi Bhushan Shukla, learned counsel for the first informant, and Sri Vijay Prakash Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Prem Chandra under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 26 of 2019, under Sections 419 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station- Bilagram, DistrictHardoi, during pendency of the trial.

¶7

As per allegation of F.I.R. dated 17.01.2019, which has been lodged against the applicant and two named persons and one unknown persons stating that on 12.01.1987, the first informant executed a registered sale deed with regard to Gata No. 503 rakba 18.15 visava in favour of Chamanpuri and the mutation in the name of the purchaser had been mutated on 18.04.1987. The co-accused Naresh Chandra got one injunction order and the mutation proceedings did not complete. On 01.10.2018, coaccused Naresh Chandra had executed the sale deed with regard to the same property by impersonating himself to be the first informant.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that as per allegation of the F.I.R., the first informant transferred all the shares of gata no. 503 vide order 12.01.1987 in favour of Chamanpuri and Rambali. The applicant is marginal witness of sale deed.

¶9

It is next contended that there is no criminal antecedent to his credit. It is next submitted that there is also no possibility of the applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. The applicant, who is languishing in jail since 01.12.2021 undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake

¶10

of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶11

Per contra , learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant have supported the order passed by the court below and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant. They further submits that after execution of sale deed dated 12.01.1987 in favour of the Chamanpuri and Rambali the applicant has been titled in gata no. 503. They further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

¶13

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let applicant, Prem Chandra be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶15

(i) 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 her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶17

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the

¶18

trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

¶19

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

¶20

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶21

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

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed in accordance with law.

¶23

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavor and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶24

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶25

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶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

Order Date :- 26.8.2022 VPS

¶28

Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH SHARMA Date: 2022.08.29 16:33:28 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Prem Chandra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Chandra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Secrt. Lko.

Purushottam Kesarwani @ Bauwa Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Bhupendra and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Jaswant Singh @ Bagga Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home and Anr.

Manoj Kumar Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Harishyam Bajpayee Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Home and Another