Allowed

Rajaram and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2023ABAIL/11925/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application, the court held that a dispute over property boundaries and alleged double sale of land is essentially of a civil nature. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, along with standard conditions of appearing for interrogation and not fleeing.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond with two sureties each, subject to conditions of interrogation, no tampering, no leave India, and court appearance.

Rajaram and Another Vs State of U.P. — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11925 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Rajaram And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Tripathi,Shadab Alam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Copies of sale deeds are taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Saurabh Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri O.P. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

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. 0230 of 2019, under Sections 420, 406 IPC, Police Station Nakhasa, District Sambhal.

¶8

As per prosecution case, the applicant Rajaram sold his plot area 453 square meters in favour of the informant in 2018; Rajaram again sold that property in 2019 to one Istekhar; this fact came into his notice when the said buyer-Istekhar asked him to vacate the disputed property; an FIR Case Crime no. 0230 of 2019, under Sections 420, 406 IPC was registered and investigated upon; the chargesheet stands submitted in 2019.

¶9

It is contended on behalf of the applicants that he did not resale the same property/plot to Istekhar; in fact the second sale deed dated 09.05.2019 in favour of Istekhar was executed with regard to different property out of same plot owned by Rajaram the present applicant; to support this argument, copy of two sale deeds have been put up before this Court and it is pointed out that boundaries of two plots are different; that the matter at the most entails a civil remedy which has been converted into a criminal case.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶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

¶12

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.

¶13

On considering the nature of accusation especially the submission that the matter at the most is of civil nature, I find it a fit case to grant benefit of anticipatory bail. Hence the present anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let the applicants, Rajaram and Brijpal 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 the court concerned subject to the conditions as below:-

¶15

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

¶16

(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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

10. 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.

¶22

11. It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant 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.

¶23

Order Date :- 9.1.2023 #Vikram/-

¶24

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

Rajaram and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajaram 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

Nitin Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P.

Saudan Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Agaaz and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.

Sakir Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Devendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mahendra Vs State of U.P. and Another