Allowed

Krishna Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Aug 2024/1584/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., holding that the case appears to be a family property dispute. Considering the applicant was not a repeat offender, had cooperated in the investigation, and civil litigation was pending regarding the accused will deed, liberty was protected.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; liberty of the applicant is protected; bail granted when summoned for trial subject to specific conditions.

Krishna Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:65728

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1584 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amol Kumar Srivastava,Jatin Gajwani,Shivang Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amrendra Nath Tripathi,Kapil Kumar Yadav,Piyush Pathak

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

1.Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned counsel for the complainant and learned Additional Government Advocate for State as well as perused the record.

¶7

2.The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for protection in regard to Case Crime No.408 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur.

¶8

3.In the prosecution case it is alleged that with connivance of some land maphias the brother of the informant i.e. applicant is trying to usurp the property of Kallumal who is father of the informant. It is also alleged that applicant along with the coaccused with ulterior motive has prepared the forged will deed in favour of the applicant dated 20.02.1992 against the property of Shri Om Prakash who is brother of Kallumal and uncle of the applicant.

¶9

4.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that grand-father of the applicant late Ramdhani purchased Gata No.179 through sale deed dated 17.08.1971 and adjoining two biswa of land therein in favour of Late kallumal and Om prakash vide registered sale deed dated 10.08.1971. At that time, Om Prakash was minor and Kallumal was 18 years old. On 20.02.1992 Late

¶10

Om Prakash executed a will deed in favour of applicant accused. After demise of Om Prakash his property was mutated in favour of Kallumal. Late Kallumal vide sale deed dated 14.12.2017 sold the partition property in Gata No.179 measuring two biswa to Amrita Singh against which the applicant filed a suit for declaration to declare the plaintiffs' therein to be 1/6 share holder of each of the property in question and further to declare sale deed dated 14.12.2017 null and void which is pending adjudication before learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No.19 registered as Regular Suit No.140/2019 (Krishna Kumar and another vs. Kallumal and others). Father of the petitioner gifted one part of the property to Shushila and Anjali who were daughters of Kallumal and sister of the applicant on 08.02.2019. Rest of the property has been sold by father of the applicant vide sale deed dated 30.03.2019 in favour of Suresh Narottam Das who is son-in-law of Late Kallumal and the husband of Smt. Shushila Kumari. The applicant filed a suit for declaration to set aside the gift deed dated 08.02.2019 and sale deed dated 30.03.2019 registered as Regular Suit No.944/2019 (Krishna Kumar and others versus Kallumal and others). A writ petition has also been filed by the applicant i.e. Writ Petition No.35884 (m/s) 2019 against the order dated 22.11.2019 passed by learned District Magistrate, Sultanpur vide Appeal No.1333/2019 wherein Hon'ble High Court was pleased to pass final judgment and decree in favour of the applicant on 18.04.2023. A suit bearing No.1910/2020 titled as Krishna Kumar vs. Samtola and another seeking permanent injunction has been filed by the present applicant against the will deed of the year 1992 and permanent injunction was sought against the father of the applicant and other family members including informant therein. Application under 340 Cr.P.C. moved by Anjali Kumari

¶11

informant in the aforesaid suit alleging that the will deed relied and produced by the applicant is forged. Consequently, an F.I.R. No.0408 of 2021, under Sections 42, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 IPC has been registered in which final report was filed by the police on 16.08.2021. Thereafter, the prosecution moved an application on 08.09.2021 seeking return of the final report for re-investigation and without any judicial order from the concerned CJM, the investigation was carried out and a Writ Petition No.29663/2021 was filed by the applicant for quashing of F.I.R. wherein interim order dated 17.12.2021 was passed in favour of the applicant staying his arrest. The charge-sheet was filed by the Investigating Agency on 18.12.2023 before learned CJM, Sultanpur. Challenging the charge-sheet applicant filed an Application U/S 482 No.543/2024 (Krishna Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others) which is pending before this Court. He submits that applicant is not a previous convict.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contention has relied on the judgments passed by Supreme Court in the cases of A.M. Mohan vs. The State ; Criminal Appeal No.1716 of 2024 , emphasis is on para 10 and Mahdoom Bava v. CBI, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 299 .

¶13

5.Per contra , learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application. It is disputed by them that civil litigation is pending between the parties. Contention of learned counsel for the complainant is that although applicant on the one hand stress that alleged reinvestigation order passed by the magistrate is illegal however, applicant suppressed the order dated 14.08.2021 passed by the Inspector General of Police. It is further submitted that applicant has suppressed another order dated 24.01.2024 passed by this Court in Application U/S 482 No.543/2024 wherein issue of re-investigation has been clarified by this Court. He

¶14

submits that no relief has been granted to the applicant in Application U/S 482 No.543/2024.

¶15

It is submitted that on the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.29963 (m/b) 2021 the alleged will deed dated 20.02.1992 was examined where signatures of two witnesses and notrial babu was found to be forged.

¶16

6.Perused the record.

¶17

It appears that during investigation, applicant has not been arrested, parties are engaged in number of litigations before the civil court as well as this court regarding the alleged will deed dated 20.02.1992 authenticity of which is yet to be tested in the civil suit. Both applicant and complainant are real brother and sister and therefore, prima facie it appears to be a family dispute regarding property for which civil litigations are going on.

¶18

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record so also the fact that the applicant is not a previous convict, he has cooperated in the investigation and he shall cooperate in the trial, dispute is civil in nautre and also the judgments of Supreme Court passed in Mahdoom Bava (supra) and A.M. Mohan (supra), it would be expedient in the interest of justice that the liberty of the applicant may be protected in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs.

¶19

State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

¶20

In view of the above, since, charge-sheet in the matter has been filed, if the applicant is summoned to face trial for offence in question, he shall be released on bail by the trial court on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶21

(i) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any

¶22

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 tamper with the evidence;

¶23

(ii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶24

(iii)The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶25

(iv)The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶26

(v) In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;

¶27

Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed.

¶28

It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶29

7.In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed . Order Date :- 13.8.2024 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶30

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Krishna Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohammad Shuaib Beg @ Shibu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Mr. Chandra Prakash @ Rajan Ojha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Ramesh Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Apil Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home Lko and Another

Rana Anand Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and 2 Others

Smt. Dharmaji Saroj Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 2 Others