Dismissed

Krishnanand v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Dec 2022BAIL/8776/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Counsel perused the bail application filed by Krishnanand in a cheating case. The court observed that the applicant had transferred property to his wife before selling it to the victim without transferable rights. Finding prima facie force in the allegations based on this conduct, the bail application was rejected.

What did the court decide?

Bail application was rejected and the accused was not enlarged on bail.

Krishnanand Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8776 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Krishnanand Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gopal Krishna Pandey,Raj Kumar Vaishya,Sandeep Maniji Bakhshi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ghan Shyam Dubey

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

1.Heard Sandeep Maniji Bakhshi, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

2.The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.41 of 2020, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Brijman Ganj, District Maharaj Ganj.

¶7

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. Lodged on 05.03.2020 stating that informant had purchased a house from the informant through a sale deed dated 20th July, 2018, after paying Rs.15,40,000/- as sale consideration and the sale deed was duly registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar Gharenda. The applicant had given possession of two upper floors of the building and the ground floor was retained by him on the pretext that his house was under construction and upon completion of the construction, he will vacate the ground floor of the house of the informant. Later on it came to light that on 29.03.2017, the applicant had executed a sale deed of the house in favour of his own wife Smt. Kanti Devi and on the date of execution of the sale deed in favour of the informant, the applicant was not the owner of the house in question and he has defrauded the informant.

¶8

It has been averred in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application that the applicant is an innocent person, that he has been falsely implicated in the case and that he has no criminal history.

¶9

The informant has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith a copy of the sale deed executed by the applicant in favour of the informant and registered in the office of the SubRegistrar Gharenda, Maharajganj, on 20.7.2018 as well as copy of the earlier sale deed executed by the applicant in favour of his own wife Smt. Kanti Devi has been annexed with the

¶10

counter affidavit.

¶11

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view of the fact what prima facie appears from the material available on record at this stage is that the applicant had sold away the property in question in favour of his own wife on 29.3.2017 and having transferred the property in favour of his own wife, the applicant no more remain the owner of the property and he has no transferable right in the property. Having sold the property in favour of his family member continued to reside in the house and the applicant projected that he was the owner of the house and he executed another sale deed in favour of the informant and charged sale consideration in respect of the property, in which he had no transferable rights. From the aforesaid discussion, prima facie the allegations leveled against the applicant in the F.I.R. appeared to be having some force.

¶12

Keeping in view the conduct of the applicant, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .

¶14

Order Date :- 15.12.2022 Deepika

¶15

Digitally signed by DEEPIKA SINGH Date: 2022.12.20 15:31:45 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Krishnanand v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnanand 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akash Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Surendra Rai Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P.

Rustam and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Laxmikant Vs State of U.P.