Allowed

Smt. Indraprabha Chaudhary and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2023ABAIL/12822/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Smt. Indraprabha Chaudhary and another in a case involving alleged forgery and cheating regarding property ownership. The court found a case made out for bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on anticipatory bail by furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to six standard conditions, with liberty to cancel bail on breach.

Smt. Indraprabha Chaudhary and Another Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12822 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Indraprabha Chaudhary And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Juhi Javed,Shubham Srivastava,Sr. Advocate,Veerendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Juhi Javed, learned counsel for the applicants, 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 him on bail in Case Crime No. 940 of 2013, u/s 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Cantt., District Varanasi.

¶7

As per prosecution case, the first informant Shekh Ajdar Hussain purchased certain land from recorded tenure holder; it is alleged in the F.I.R. that the sale deed was executed in favour of the first informant on 21.10.2013. Seven days thereafter at about 4 P.M. one Ram Chandra Chaudhary and Smt. Indra Prabha Chaudhary (the present applicants) came and claimed that the property belonged to them only, saying that the same was purchased by them from a society. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the present applicants prepared forged and fabricated papers to claim and illegally dispossess him from the property. This property was never owned by the society.

¶8

It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the allegations as contained in the F.I.R. are absolutely baseless. The real facts are other way round. The sale deed dated 21.10.2013 is a forged one. The claim of the first informant is bogus. The daughter of the applicants submitted a written complaint to the competent authorities regarding execution of a fake sale deed of their property by the first informant and his predecessors in interest. The matter was enquired into and a report was submitted to the Assistant Registrar. In fact Mitra Gosthi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., in terms of its bye laws executed a registered lease deed in favour of the applicants on 15.6.1974 and since then the applicants have been in peaceful occupation thereof and their name have also been entered in the land records. They

¶9

constructed two rooms thereon. In a subsequent development, one Shamsuddin and Buddhiaram got a fake sale deed executed in their favour on 17.12.1996 and thereafter, got mutated their names. Another fake sale deed was executed by Shamsuddin in favour of the present first informant. When this fact was revealed to the applicants they moved an application before the District Magistrate. After an enquiry by A.I.G. Stamp, SLO and A.D.M., the sale deed was found to be fake and the District Magistrate ordered for lodging an F.I.R. against Shamsuddin and Buddhiram, therefore, Case Crime No. 912 of 2019, u/s 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 has been lodged against them which is under investigation. A civil suit seeking permanent injunction, filed by Shamsuddin, has been dismissed. Another civil suit, filed by the instant first informant too has been dismissed exparte. The mutations have also been cancelled. The applicants are absolutely innocent. They are aged more than 84 years; this F.I.R. has been lodged against them for ulterior motives.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. However, the fact of lodging the F.I.R. with regard to the property in question against the predecessors in interest of the first informant, preceded by an enquiry by the Assistant Registrar etc. and other related facts could not be refuted.

¶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, I considered submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case. In my opinion a case for anticipatory bail is made out. Hence, the present anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicants, Smt. Indraprabha Chaudhary and Ram Chandra Chaudhary 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 him 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 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.

¶22

Order Date :- 15.2.2023/Vandana

¶23

Digitally signed by :- VANDANA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Indraprabha Chaudhary and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Indraprabha Chaudhary 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

Ram Tej Yadav Vs State of U.P and Another

Himanshu Trivedi Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Harijan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Jamaluddin Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramesh Chandra Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and Another