Allowed

Sweta Sinha v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Jan 2023ABAIL/7678/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to Sweta Sinha, alleging she was falsely implicated in a cheating and forgery case involving property disputes. The applicant was required to furnish a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount.

Sweta Sinha Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7678 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sweta Sinha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for applicant is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 225 of 2022, under sections 420, 406, 506, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station- Shahpur, District- Gorakhpur.

¶8

Facts in brief are that in this case, this applicant purchased the land in dispute from Satyawan Yadav through registered sale deed regarding which mutation was also completed, later on Satyawan Yadav and Awadhesh Sahani engaged them to sell the same property in favour of this applicant by taking commission. Applicant transferred the land through registered sale deed in favour of informant by receiving consideration and his name was also mutated in revenue record after mutation. When the informant went on the plot to make construction, he was prevented by some Tiwari Ji alleging that the land was owned by him and Lekhpal was called on who told that the land sold to the informant belonged to Gata No. 438 whereas transfer was made by this applicant of the land as Gata No. 429. F.I.R. was lodged by the informant against this applicant and co-accused Satyawan Yadav and Awadhesh Sahani who were the witnesses of the sale deed.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. In this case, applicant has committed no any fraud and forgery with the informant but it was done by co-accused Satywan Yadav who first sold his own property in favour of this applicant through sale deed related to arazi no. 429 and later on he received the money as commission agent from the informant and sowed him other property on the place of the property owned by this applicant but this applicant received the consideration money

¶10

about the property owned by her. She never sold the property located in Arazi No. 438 to the informant. Lastly, it is submitted that since, the matter is under investigation, the applicant is under apprehension of imminent arrest. In case, she is released on bail, she would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the investigation.

¶11

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and urged that the property located in Arazi No. 438 was sold to the informant as Arazi No. 429 and it was sold in favour of the informant by this applicant by executing the sale deed though acceded the fact that Satyawan Yadav himself worked as middleman and he received the amount of his commission amounting to Rs. 1,80,000/- from the informant.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail .

¶13

Let the applicant- Sweta Sinha shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned/ S.H.O. in case of arrest.

¶14

In case, applicant does not cooperate with investigation, this order shall be deemed to be automatically vacated or cancelled.

¶15

Order Date :- 18.1.2023 A. Singh

¶16

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sweta Sinha v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sweta Sinha 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Javed Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jahid Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pankaj Rai Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Amit Sharma Vs State of U.P.and Another

Mohammad Suhel and 5 Others Vs State of U.P.