Allowed

Vandana Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2023ABAIL/3893/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Vandana Singh in a cheating and forgery case. Relying on a Supreme Court precedent, the court held bail can continue until the conclusion of the trial, considering the accused's role, nature of offense, and specific facts surrounding the alleged fraud in property sale.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till conclusion of trial on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties and adherence to specific conditions.

Vandana Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:139765

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3893 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Vandana Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Devendra Mohan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the material available on record.

¶7

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant- Vandana Singh in connection with Case Crime No. 274 of 2020, under sections 419, 420, 423, 467, 468, 471, 102-B, 506 IPC, P.S. Jeanpur, District Azamgarh.

¶8

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and she has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Charge sheet in the matter has been submitted. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

It is further submitted that the accused applicant is a bona fide purchaser and she has purchased the land after the payment of requisite consideration amount. It is next submitted that the applicant is a lady. She is having no criminal history to her credit. It is also submitted that the sale deed in her favour has been executed by the owners of the property and now, her name has been mutated in the revenue records as well. It is next submitted that a civil suit for cancellation of sale deed is already pending before the competent civil court. It is next submitted that earlier, the applicant was granted anticipatory bail in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.8284 of 2020 vide order dated 21.01.2021 till filing of police report in this matter. It is next submitted that she has been cooperative with the I.O. of the case during the course of investigation and now after filing of the charge sheet, she is entitled for anticipatory bail till end of trial.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and vehemently submitted that the whole episode of sale of land is a story of fraud played by the named accused persons in this case. It is further submitted that the real owners of the land in dispute reside in America for the last 30-35 years and they never returned to India. It is next submitted that the fraud was played mainly by the named accused person, Dhruv Singh, who produced two imposters in place of Mehtab and Aftab, the real owner of the property and the imposters executed the sale deed in favour of the present accused applicant, who is the wife of main accused Dhruv Singh. It is also submitted that the father of the informant has also filed a civil suit for cancellation of sale deed, which is still pending. It is further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, she is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶11

In the present case, as alleged in the F.I.R.,the real owners of the property, Mehtab and Aftab resides in America and some imposters were executed the sale deed of their property of the present accused applicant. It is also noteworthy that the F.I.R. was lodged by the cousin of the real owners of the property and the civil suit has also been filed not by the real owners of the property but by the uncle.

¶12

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.

¶13

It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.

¶14

It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶15

Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for

¶16

anticipatory bail to the applicant till conclusion of trial in the matter.

¶17

The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶18

In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶19

(i) 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶21

(iii) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶22

(iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the applicant in accordance with law.

¶24

Order Date :- 12.7.2023 Shivangi

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vandana Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vandana Singh 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

Sughar Lal Pal Vs State of U.P.

Paramhans Agarwal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jagdish Prasad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hari Shankar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Fareed @ Fareed Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jafar Hussain Vs State of U.P.