Dismissed

Vimlesh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Aug 2023ABAIL/8031/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by Vimlesh and Pradip Kumar Singh in a fraud case involving disputed sale deeds. The court held the case was not fit for bail given the serious nature of allegations and refused the prayer.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is refused and the application is rejected.

Vimlesh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:167853

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8031 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Vimlesh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants Vimlesh and Pradip Kumar Singh seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 43 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468 IPC, Police Station Tajganj, District Agra.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of their arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. It is also submitted that the applicants had absolutely no knowledge of the sale deed executed by Hari Om Sharma on 3.8.2016 on the basis of power of attorney executed in his favour by applicant no.1 and only after lodging the F.I.R. the applicants came to know about the aforesaid sale deed. No consideration has been passed in favour of the applicants in respect of the sale deed which was executed by Hari Om Sharma in favour of some other persons. It is also submitted that in a bonafide belief of being the owner of the land in question, applicant no.1 had executed the sale deed in favour of the informant. The dispute is purely of civil nature. The investigation of the case is going on. Applicants are cooperating with the investigation. It has been submitted that in case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that since the power of attorney was executed in favour of Hari Om Sharma by the applicant no.1 herself, it cannot be said

¶11

that she had no knowledge about the sale deed executed by the said Hari Om Sharma on the basis of the aforesaid power of attorney. The consideration amount has also been enjoyed by the applicants and with malafide intention they have played fraud with the informant and the same land, which was already sold by Hari Om Sharma, the power of attorney holder, was again sold by the applicant no.1 to the informant.

¶12

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

From the perusal of the record it appears that a power of attorney was executed by the applicant no.1 on 30.6.2015 in favour of Hari Om Sharma and on the basis of said power of attorney, the said Hari Om Sharma sold the plot in question in favour of Gudia Devi, Ram Pratap, Satendra Chaubey and Pramod on 3.8.2016, however, subsequently the applicant no.1 in collusion with the applicant no.2, her husband, also sold the said land to the informant by way of a sale deed dated 13.9.2018. F.I.R. was lodged on 18.1.2020 and investigation started, which is still going on.

¶14

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held 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, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants, all attending facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that allegations are serious in nature, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants. Prayer made in the application is refused.

¶16

10. The application is rejected .

¶17

However, it is observed that the bail application of the

¶18

applicants, if moved, shall be considered and decided by the Court concerned in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825 .

¶19

Order Date :- 21.8.2023

¶20

safi

¶21

Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vimlesh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimlesh and Another 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

Girjesh Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ranvijay Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Akash Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Dilshad Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anand @ Aanshu Vs State of U.P.

Achyuta Nand Pandey Vs State of U.P.and Another