Allowed

Sudami v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Feb 2023ABAIL/13456/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an Order in which the Allahabad High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application in a cheating case. The court held that a case for bail is made out and granted it subject to conditions, despite the prosecution alleging the applicant was a fraudster in a land transaction.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant Sudami on anticipatory bail on a personal bond with two sureties subject to specified conditions.

Sudami 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. - 13456 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sudami Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar,Kamla Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

01.Heard Smt. Kamla Singh,learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant- Sudami with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.70 of 2010, under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Chakiya, District Chandauli.

¶7

As per prosecution case, the certain land of the first informant was allegedly sold in fraudulent manner by one Sharda Devi to the present applicant Sudami in 1997. On the basis of these facts an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the first informant, after investigation chargesheet was submitted against Sudami (seller) and the present applicant (purchaser).

¶8

It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the applicant is innocent and a bonafide purchaser. The land in question was sold by Lateef Ahamad to Sharda Devi from whom present applicant purchased in 1997; he has not been made party; the matter is essentially of civil nature entailing a remedy of civil nature only which has been converted into a criminal case; it is further contended that the applicant is a 77 years old lady; proceeding of the case was stayed by order passed on 09.11.2010 on an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.33731 of 2010. However, in the light of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2022) 10 SCC 592 proceedings have been revived but the applicant was not served with any process till now. As apprehension of arrest has arisen, hence liberty may be protected by exercising powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. However, factual aspect i.e. the applicant is allegedly a purchaser; the case was registered on the basis of application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.; stay of the proceeding in the light of the order of this Court; its revival in the light of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are not disputed.

¶10

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.

¶11

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, a case for anticipatory bail is made out. Hence, the present anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant Sudami 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:-

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 1.2.2023

¶22

Asha

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sudami v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudami 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

Mohan Jha and Another Vs State of U.P.

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

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

Mahatam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Javed Quresi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Mohani and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another