Allowed

Surat Ram Patel and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 Jan 2023ABAIL/11830/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants anticipatory bail to applicants under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with allegations of fraudulent land transactions. The Court found a case made out for bail and imposed standard conditions regarding availability, tampering, and travel permissions.

What did the court decide?

Release on anticipatory bail on a personal bond with two sureties each subject to standard conditions including appearance in court.

Surat Ram Patel and Another Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11830 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Surat Ram Patel And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Yadav,Swati Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri O.P. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 375 of 2022, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 419, 420, 467, 468, 120B IPC, Police Station Sarnath, District Varanasi.

¶7

An FIR has been lodged by one Durvijay Singh alleging that he purchased certain land from Jitendra, Rajendra and Smt. Devi on 15.11.2014 and has been in possession since the execution of sale deed; On 15.09.2019, Smt. Bhagya Laxmi and certain other came armed with 'lathi-danda', with the intention to take illegal possession of his purchased land; the applicant inquired about the matter and came to know that his land has been fraudulently purchased by the persons named in the FIR, on 20.04.2019, knowing fully well that it belonged to him; the present applicant stood as marginal witness in the sale deed.

¶8

It is contended on behalf of the applicant that he has been assigned the role of a marginal witness in the disputed sale deed and on that he simply identified the parties in the role of marginal witness; there is no specific allegation that he conspired to execute another sale deed belonging to the first informant; it is also contended that at the most the matter is civil in nature which has been converted into criminal one just to put pressure on the interested parties.

¶9

The application for anticipatory bail is opposed by learned AGA for the State. It is brought to the courts notice that the investigation is pending and applicant has no criminal history.

¶10

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

¶11

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, I considered submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, In my view, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶13

Let the applicants, Surat Ram Patel and Vivek Singh involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each of the same amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions as below:-

¶14

(i) that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶15

(ii) that the applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶16

(iii) that the applicants shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶17

(iv) that the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶18

(v) that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶19

(vi) that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted.

¶20

9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicants.

¶21

10. It is made clear that observations made herein shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion at any stage of the case based on material before him.

¶22

Order Date :- 30.1.2023 #Vikram/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Surat Ram Patel and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surat Ram Patel and Another 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

Ashish Miglani Vs State of U.P.

Bittu @ Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P and 2 Others

Kailash and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.

Mohan Jha and Another Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Urvashi Devi and Another Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.