Rajendra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 83

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1295 of 2023

Applicant :- Rajendra And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh Bais Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinay Kumar Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh Bais, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vinay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Nitin Kesarwani, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material available on record.

¶6

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 424 of 2007, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B of IPC, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the co-accused Rakam Singh is stated to have sold the land to applicant no.1 without getting his property demarcated as he did not hold the title of the said land to which he executed the sale-deed to the applicant no.1.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants are maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and have apprehension of their arrest. The applicant no.1 is a bonafide purchaser and has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has further stated that there is a civil dispute with regard to demarcation of the property between the parties. The applicant nos. 2 and 3 are the marginal witnesses of the said sale-deed and have nothing to do with the said offence.

¶9

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. It is further submitted that the applicants have no criminal history. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed, they will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶10

On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants and also the fact that the applicants have no criminal history.

¶11

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of " Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 ", the applicants are entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶12

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed .

¶13

In the event of arrest of the applicants, Rajendra son of Tejpal, Vineet Kumar son of Kehar Singh and Rajendra Kumar son of Jai Pal , involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶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; v. that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; vi. that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence are exempted;

¶18

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.

¶19

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶20

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶21

Order Date :- 20.4.2023 Siddhant

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajendra and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalim Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Imran Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Reeta Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Habib Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Pachauri Vs State of U.P. and Another

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