Allowed

Satish Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Nov 2024ABAIL/10285/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought anticipatory bail in a cheating and forgery case concerning an allegedly forged sale deed executed by an imposter posing as the deceased Gopi Chand. Court granted anticipatory bail till end of trial on conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till end of trial on personal bond Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each, subject to stated conditions.

Satish Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:175221

¶2

Court No. - 82

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10285 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Satish Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Upadhyay,Vinod Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Satish Kumar seeking anticipatory bail in Case No. 20713 of 2023, Case Crime No. 0074 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Mundali, District Meerut.

¶9

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the alleged sale deed is a genuine and legal document and the present applicant has got it executed in his favour and of the coaccused Yogendra Kaushik after paying the requisite consideration amount and as such they are the bonafide purchasers. It is further submitted that some civil litigations are also pending between the parties in respect of the dispute of forged sale deed. Applicant has no criminal history. The investigation of the case has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed. It is also submitted that the applicant has approached this Court through Application U/S 482 CrPC but no order has been passed in the said application. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the trial and would obey all conditions of bail. It is lastly submitted that the applicant was granted anticipatory bail by this Court during course of investigation in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 5134 of 2023 vide order dated 8.5.2023 and has

¶10

not misused the said liberty.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that no person named Gopi Chand was existing at the time of execution of alleged sale deed on 29.10.2022. It is further submitted that the so-called seller Gopi Chand was identified by co-accused Ashok Kumar Kaushik, who is the real brother of the co-accused Yogendra Kaushik and was well known to the fact that the said Gopi Chand had in fact died.

¶12

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully.

¶13

Prosecution story, as reveals from the F.I.R., is that one Gopi Chand had constructed own Shiv Mandir, Dharmshala and Well on plot no. 209 in the village and trees were also planted and it was taken care of by the villagers. The said Gopi Chand died far ago and none of his family members ever came to look after the said property. Taking benefit of this fact, the accused persons, in collusion with each other, got executed a forged sale deed of the said property by some imposter and presenting him as Gopi Chand, who was no more, in favour of the present applicant and co-accused Yogendra Kaushik. Apart from that, the compensation in respect of some part of the land in khasra no. 209, which was acquired by N.H.A.I., was also taken by all the accused persons and distributed amongst all. It is further alleged that a forged bank account in the name of Gopi Chand was also opened and the compensation money was deposited in the said forged bank account and subsequently the same was withdrawn. F.I.R. was lodged and investigation started which culminated into charge sheet.

¶14

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on the subject finally by holding that the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:

¶19

"11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170CrPC which had been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173CrPC. It has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under Section 87CrPC that the accused has either been absconding or shall not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii) above by the High Court are in the nature of caution.

¶20

Insofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170CrPC, the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge-sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this."

¶21

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for

¶22

anticipatory bail to the applicant till the end of trial.

¶23

The application is allowed accordingly.

¶24

In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail 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:-

¶25

(i) The applicant shall make himself available before the Court concerned on the date fixed in the matter and will cooperate in the trial.

¶26

(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 office.

¶27

(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.

¶28

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

¶29

Order Date :- 7.11.2024 safi

¶30

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

Satish Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kumar 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

Priyanka Tripathi vs Ashutosh Shukla

Sujeet Verma vs State of Up and 3 Others

Mahesh Chaudhary vs State of Up and Another

Mohd Saeed vs State of Up and Another

Somveer vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Kumar Alias Tinkle vs State of U.P.