Allowed

Piyush Verma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2023ABAIL/7146/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble J. Nalin Kumar Srivastava granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a cheating and forgery case citing lack of credible evidence. Bail is allowed till the end of trial subject to personal bond and surrender conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till the end of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and complying with conditions regarding court appearances and non-interference with witnes

Piyush Verma Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:146152

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7146 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Piyush Verma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Indra Jit Singh,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akash Tomar

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Sri O.P. Singh, senior advocate assisted by Sri Indra Jit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Akash Tomar, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the material available on record.

¶7

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the applicant - Piyush Verma in connection with Complaint Case No.236 of 2012, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Bijnor.

¶8

As per allegations against the applicant, a registered power of attorney dated 23.3.1999 was executed by Surendra Kumar in favour of the present accused applicant and on the basis of said power of attorney, three sale deeds were executed by the applicant in the life time of Surendra Kumar. Subsequently, Surendra Kumar died in the year 2006 and F.I.R. was lodged by the informant / son of Surendra Kumar under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC against the present accused applicant and one Smt. Vimla Gupta alleging therein that the power of attorney was obtained fraudulently and it was a forged document and the father of the informant never executed any power of attorney in favour of the present accused applicant. However, during course of investigation, the thumb impression and signature of Surendra Kumar were compared and examined and it was found that the signature of Surendra Kumar, who was the power of attorney executor, was genuine one and final report was submitted into the matter. The informant protested the final report and the trial court while rejecting the final report, treated the protest petition as a complaint and after recording the required evidence, the accused applicant along with co-accused Smt. Vimla Gupta was summoned to face trial under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor vide order dated 2.3.2013. The said summoning order was challenged by way of criminal revision, but the same was dismissed. Thereafter a criminal misc. writ petition no.152 of 2014 was preferred wherein stay order was passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.3.2014. The stay order was continued, but the learned trial court in compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd and another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2018) 16 SCC 299, proceeded with the trial of the case and warrants

¶9

were issued against the applicant.

¶10

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. He has been falsely implicated into this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further submitted that the power of attorney executed by Surendra Kumar was a genuine document and the expert report corroborates the version of the applicant. There is no document contrary to the report of expert collected by the I.O. during the course of investigation of the case. Since the proceedings of this case were stayed in criminal misc. writ petition no.152 of 2014, the applicant was not aware of the proceedings of the case pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor. It is further submitted that no forgery or cheating has been committed by the applicant. A civil suit is already pending before the competent court wherein relief of cancellation of sale deed has been prayed for.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and it has been submitted that in the circumstances of the case, there was no occasion for late Surendra Kumar to execute any power of attorney in favour of the applicant and the said document is a forged and fabricated one. Civil proceedings can very well continue during the subsistence of criminal proceedings. It is further submitted that the applicant is not cooperating with the trial of the case. It is further submitted that a huge monetary loss has been caused to the complainant and his family members and in these circumstances, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶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, likelihood 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,

¶16

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

¶17

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶18

In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid complaint case, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till end of the trial 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 make himself available before the court concerned on the date fixed in the matter;

¶20

(ii) 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 / her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶21

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶22

In case of default of any of the conditions, same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant.

¶23

Order Date :- 18.7.2023

¶24

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Piyush Verma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Piyush Verma 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

Haresh Kumar Kushwah Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jhamman Vs State of U.P.

Dharmendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ritu Patel Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Umashankar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Aman Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another