Allowed

Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Oct 2022ABAIL/3852/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a case involving alleged cheating, forgery, and fraudulent execution of a sale deed where related civil litigation is pending.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each, subject to standard conditions of appearing for interrogation, not influencing witnesses, and cooperating in invest

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3852 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yash Raj Verma,Swetashwa Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akhilesh Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.80 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Auraiya, DistrictAuraiya with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. The allegation against applicant is that father of applicant (co-accused Shankar Lal) has executed a sale-deed of land having area 92.93 square meter in favour of the informant, whereas, father of applicant was not the owner of that entire land and the sale-deed executed by father of applicant was in excess of the land, owned by him. Learned counsel submitted that alleged sale-deed was executed in the year 2008 and possession of the entire land was handed over to the informant. It was submitted that applicant is neither the seller nor the witness of the alleged sale-deed. The first information report has been got lodged after about 10-11 years in the year 2019 by moving an application under Section 156(3) CrPC. It is further submitted that matter between the parties is

¶8

pending before the civil court. Applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant undertakes to co-operate during investigation and trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for complainant have opposed the application for anticipatory bail and argued that father of applicant has deliberately executed sale-deed in excess to his land and thereafter, in the year 2019 father of applicant and his nephew tried to take possession over the dispute land. It was submitted that there are serious allegations against applicant.

¶10

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶11

In the instant case, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶12

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶13

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Pradeep Kumar in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned/Court below concerned with the following conditions :-

¶14

(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police as and when required;

¶15

(ii) 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/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶16

(iii) the applicant would co-operate during investigation and trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶17

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶18

Order Date :- 11.10.2022 Neeraj

¶19

Digitally signed by NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.10.12 16:43:45 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajeet Singh and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr. Kanhaiyalal and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.

Karan Gupta and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Sufiyaan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Jiya Khan Vs State of U.P.

Abad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others