Allowed

Arun Kumar Gautam @ Arun Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.Deptt.of Home and Another

Allahabad HC2 Jul 2024ABAIL/1458/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow granted anticipatory bail to applicants facing a charge of cheating and forgery in a property dispute. The court found the matter to be a civil subterfuge with no substantive evidence of criminal intent or flight risk, allowing bail subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to personal bond, sureties, availability for interrogation, non-interference with evidence/witnesses, and appearance on dates.

Arun Kumar Gautam @ Arun Kumar and Another vs State… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:44793

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1458 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Arun Kumar Gautam @ Arun Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.Deptt.Of Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Karunakar Srivastava,Shiv Sinha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicants for grant of anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0127 of 2023, under Sections-419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C, Police StationDhanepur, District-Gonda, during trial.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that it is purely civil dispute which has been given colour by filing the instant FIR.

¶9

It is further pointed out that earlier the complainant and the predecessor-in-interest of the present applicants were already getting their rights litigated in the revenue courts. The rights were partly upheld in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the applicants. In view thereof, a revision was also filed which is still engaging the attention of the revisional court. However, in the meantime the complainant had lodged the FIR. It is stated that as per the averments made in the FIR the property-inquestion is said to have belonged to Nawab Ali s/o Sattar. One Smt. Raziya Bano who is predecessor-in-interest of the applicants had got her name mutated in place of her deceased husband. Nawab Ali and thereafter executed the sale deed in favour of present applicants.

¶10

It is alleged that the applicants are bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration and as such they have no role to play. However, in pursuance of the FIR the applicants are under the impending threat of arrest hence they moved the application seeking anticipatory bail application.

¶11

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application and submits that in so far as the present applicants are concerned, they have

¶12

purchased the property from Raziya Bano despite the fact that the right of Raziya Bano itself is under cloud and no clear adjudication has taken place in such circumstances the anticipatory bail application deserves to be dismissed.

¶13

Having considered the aforesaid submission and perused the record, it could not be disputed by learned AGA that the parties are already litigating their rights in the revenue courts. Once the complainant has assailed the order of mutation passed in favour of Raziya Bano and thereafter, the Tehsildar upon enquiry found that Nawab Ali was survived by his two wives and Raziya Bano was one of the wives and she inherited half share in the property.

¶14

Be that as it may, the fact remains that it is purely a civil dispute and even in a best case scenario, Smt. Raziya would have still half share being widow of Nawab Ali and in such circumstances where she has got executed sale deed in favour of the applicants who appears to be bonafide purchasers, there does not appear to be any particular act committed by the applicants which may result in incrimination of the applicants.

¶15

Having considered the facts and circumstances and the submission made by respective parties including the nature and gravity of the accusation and no apprehension has been expressed that the applicants is at flight risk, hence, this Court is of the opinion that the applicants can be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶16

In the event of arrest of the applicants -Arun Kumar Gautam @ Arun Kumar and Ram Ujagar involved in the aforesaid FIR/Case Crime Number, shall be released on bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court Concerned, with the conditions:-

¶17

(a) that the applicants shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required;

¶18

(b) that 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶19

¶20

(d) that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶21

(e) that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date :- 2.7.2024

¶25

Harshita

¶26

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

Arun Kumar Gautam @ Arun Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.Deptt.of Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar Gautam @ Arun Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.Deptt.of Home 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shail Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko. and 8 Others

Chhotu Rathaur and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Dept. Lko and 3 Others

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

Shyamanand Chaubey @ S.N. Chaubey vs the State of U.P. Thru. Superintendent of Police Central Bureau Investigation/Acb Lko.

Mukesh Kumar Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko.

Chore @ Munsareef vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko