Allowed

Chandrabahadur Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Jan 2023ABAIL/12417/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.P.C. to two applicants accused of cheating, forgery, and forgery of valuable security papers, subject to conditions including appearance for interrogation and restrictions on influencing witnesses or leaving India.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicants on anticipatory bail till submission of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on furnishing bond with two sureties.

Chandrabahadur Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12417 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Chandrabahadur Yadav And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Pratap Narayan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 339 of 2022, under sections 411, 419, 420, 467, 468, 323, 504, 506, 120-B IPC, Police Station- Line Bazar, District- Jaunpur.

¶7

Facts in brief are that on 22.8.2019, Gata No. 301 area 0.170 hectare was transferred in favour of Sangita Yadav through sale deed by Savitri Devi, the mother of the informant in which coaccused Chandra Bahadur Yadav was marginal witness. It is also alleged in the F.I.R. that the applicant took the mother of the informant to the registry office and got the land transferred in the name of his wife though the mental condition of his mother was not good and she was illiterate lady aged about 81 years and feeble.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. In this case, Gata No. 301 area 170 hectare was transferred by Savitri Devi in favour of Sangita Yadav wife of Chandra Bahadur Yadav by receiving consideration. Further submitted that on the same day i.e. 22.8.2019 other document was got registered in the same registry office regarding the cancellation of agreement to sale in which Savitri Devi was present. On the same day the sale deed in question was also executed by her. Further submitted that on the same day the informant was also present at registry office and executed agreement to sale in favour of Manoj Singh, which shows that at the time of registration of sale deed by Savitri Singh, the informant was present there. In this way, the allegation that Savitri Devi was taken by this applicants on the pretext of her treatment becomes false and also to say that Savitri Singh was illiterate and was not in good health and mental condition can also not be said to be true. It is also submitted that the informant stated in the F.I.R. that he and other members of his family were

¶9

living at Mumbai in relation to employment also does not get support from the execution of agreement to sale made by the informant in registry office on the same day when sale deed in question was executed by his mother. Lastly, it is submitted that investigation is going on, therefore, they are under apprehension of imminent arrest. In case, they are released on bail, they would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the investigation.

¶10

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but acceded the fact that on the same day other agreement to sale was executed by Savitri Singh and also by the informant at the same registry office.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A., the perusal of record and without commenting on the merits of the case, the applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case for the limited period considering the exception considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC Online SC 98.

¶12

In the event of arrest of the applicants- Chandrabahadur Yadav, Sangeeta Yadav and Manoj Singh , shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

(i) The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police office as and when required;

¶14

(ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office;

¶15

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶16

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.

¶17

Order Date :- 28.1.2023 A. Singh

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chandrabahadur Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrabahadur Yadav and 2 Others 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

Arun Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Triloki Nath Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Kr. Pandey Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home and Others

Mohammad Aslam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Maulana Qambar Hussain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Nagar Alias Surender Singh Vs State of U.P.