Allowed

Om Prakash @ Lallan Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Aug 2022ABAIL/6294/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal anticipatory bail application regarding cheating and forgery over a property sale-deed, the High Court held that a case for bail existed and allowed the application, imposing a personal bond with sureties and directing cooperation with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and appearing for interrogation.

Om Prakash @ Lallan Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6294 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Om Prakash @ Lallan Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nabi Ullah Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,P.K. Singh,Shashi Kant Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the 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.0190 of 2021, u/s 419, 420, 467, 468, 406, 504, 506, 120B IPC, P.S. Barsathi, District Jaunpur 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. According to prosecution version, the complainant was not having any child and that applicant and co-accused persons have got executed a sale-deed of the flat of complainant by giving a forged demand draft of Rs.15 lakhs and promising that the remaining amount shall be transferred into account of complainant, whereas, the total consideration for sale of flat was fixed Rs.60 lakhs. Learned counsel submitted that applicant is merely a marginal witness of the said sale-deed, which has been executed in favour of coaccused Rakesh and that allegation that any forged demand draft was handed over to the complainant, is thoroughly false. The dispute is civil in nature and the affected person has

¶8

remedy of filing civil suit for cancellation of said sale-deed and that applicant is not beneficiary of the transfer of flat It was submitted that the said sale-deed was executed by paying due consideration of Rs.45 lakhs. It is further submitted that main accused Rakesh in whose favour, the said sale-deed has been executed, has already been granted interim anticipatory bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the copy of which is available on record. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and that 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 will co-operate during investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the application for anticipatory bail and argued that applicant is nephew of complainant, who was an old person and he was not having any children and that taking advantage of his old age, applicant and co-accused persons have got executed agreement to sell of his flat and they did not pay the consideration amount of Rs.60 lakhs. The applicant and coaccused persons have given a forged demand draft of Rs.15 lakhs to the complainant and assured that remaining amount shall be transferred into his account but no amount was transferred into account of complainant. The said demand draft was found a forged document. Learned counsel submitted that the applicant is family member of complainant and he took advantage of the old age of the complainant and obtained his property by way of cheating and forgery. Regarding anticipatory bail of co-accused Rakesh, it was submitted that earlier said co-accused Rakesh was granted interim anticipatory bail, as the counter affidavit could not be filed on behalf of

¶10

complainant, thus, the said interim protection was extended further granting anticipatory bail to said co-accused Rakesh and thus, the applicant cannot claim parity with anticipatory bail of co-accused Rakesh. Learned counsel for complainant submitted that applicant was not merely a marginal witness and in fact he was a confirming party and thus, he is a third party and he is beneficiary of the said offence of cheating and forgery.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶14

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Om Prakash @ Lallan Yadav 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 :-

¶15

(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation

¶16

by the police as and when required;

¶17

(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;

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

Order Date :- 4.8.2022 Neeraj

¶21

Digitally signed by NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.08.06 13:11:49 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Om Prakash @ Lallan Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash @ Lallan Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Shaktiman Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mehul Kumari Vs State of U.P.

Kajim Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandra Shekhar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suraj Harijan and Another Vs State of U.P. .and Another

Amir and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another