Allowed

Dhruv Narayan Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC29 Apr 2024/1951/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court granted bail to the applicant in a criminal case involving cheating and forgery. The Court observed a prima facie civil dispute between parties. Considering the lack of flight risk, the applicant was released on bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each.

Dhruv Narayan Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:33541

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1951 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Dhruv Narayan Shukla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Dwivedi,Girish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prashant Pandey

¶5

. Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Sri Prashant Pandey, learned counsel has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of complainant which is taken on record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in FIR No. 0514 of 2023 under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 352, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station-Gosainganj, District Lucknow.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that as per the version of the First Information Report, it is alleged that the complainant had sold the property relating to Gata No. 508, Khata No. 92 measuring 417 hectares situate in Village Pahad Nagar Tikariya, P.S. Gosainganj, District Lucknow, out of which half share was purchased from Sri Kishore Kumar Dixit by means of sale deed dated 02.02.2023.

¶9

It is further stated that this land was further sold by the complainant to the applicant by means of a registered sale deed dated 11.04.2022. It is also the allegation that the applicant soon after the purchasing the property from the complainant executed several sale deeds in favour of prospective buyers by virtue of which he had amassed a lot of funds. It is further submitted that as per the FIR it is the case that the sale

¶10

consideration which was to be paid by the applicant to the complainant that was also not paid and the cheque, reference of which is contained in the sale deed was also stopped for payment by the applicant, as a result, the complainant felt cheated as he sold the property without getting the necessary sale consideration and on the other hand, the applicant has sold it to other persons on a much higher rate.

¶11

The further submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that in so far as the aforesaid dispute is concerned, the same is civil in nature and that there is already a civil suit engaging the attention of the competent court.

¶12

It is also stated that there was another sale deed by virtue of which the applicant and the private respondents have jointly purchased some part of the property and this clearly indicates that the applicant and the complainant had business relations and they were involved in real estate transactions.

¶13

In the aforesaid backdrop, it is alleged that the matter is of civil in nature and that the applicant is in Jail since 10.01.2024 and in the aforesaid circumstances, the applicant be enlarged on bail.

¶14

Sri Prashant Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that the applicant has not disclosed the complete facts, inasmuch as, there are two sale deeds (i) where the applicant and the complainant both had purchased the property and in respect of this sale deed too where both the complainant as well as the applicant have half share yet the applicant has sold even the other half share belonging to the complainant. In so far as (ii) the other sale deed which admittedly was executed by the complainant in favour of the applicant wherein he has not received his sale consideration for which a civil suit is pending seeking cancellation.

¶15

In the aforesaid circumstances, where the applicant is prima facie involved in committing cheating and forgery and for the aforesaid

¶16

reasons, he is not entitled to any indulgence from this Court.

¶17

Learned A.G.A has, however, opposed the prayer for grant of bail on the similar lines but he has not disputed the above contention made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant.

¶18

The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record. Prima facie, there appears to be a civil dispute between the parties, it is also noticed from the record that the applicant and the complainant were having joint business transactions which has escalated into dispute and led to filing of the FIR.

¶19

The record further indicates that the other coaccused Aniket Shukla was granted bail by this Court vide order date 02.04.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3629 of 2024. The present applicant is also a director and as the same role has played to Aniket Shukla.

¶20

Considering the rival submissions, the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record as well as considering the nature of allegations as well as the fact that no apprehension has been expressed by the learned AGA that the applicant is at the risk of fleeing justice or that he would tamper with evidence or influence any witness, hence, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶21

Let the applicant Dhruv Narayan Shukla involved in FIR No. 0514 of 2023 under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 352, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station-Gosainganj, District Lucknow be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶22

At the time of executing required sureties the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice. (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence

¶23

when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶24

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶25

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶26

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶27

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶28

O rder Date :- 29.4.2024 ank

¶29

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dhruv Narayan Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhruv Narayan Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohd. Asif Ansari @ Munnu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Samiullah Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rudra Prakash Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home Civil Secretariat Lucknow, U.P.

Daisy and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Smt. Urmila Devi Vs Directorate of Enforcement Lko. Zonal Office Lko.