Remanded

Vimlesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2024ABAIL/2670/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted interim anticipatory bail to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The applicant, a farmer, alleged she was a bona fide purchaser and beneficiary of property involved in forgery charges. Finding prima facie no offence, the court released her on bond with standard conditions. Hearing held on 03.12.2024.

What did the court decide?

Interim anticipatory bail granted on personal bond and two solvent sureties with undertakings regarding interrogation and tampering with evidence.

Vimlesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2670 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Vimlesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prateek Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This is the second anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 148 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda.

¶7

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the property in question was got registered in the name of present applicant by the actual owner, namely, Murlidhar Awasthi while fact remains that he is the father-in-law of the applicant. He further added that the property in question was admittedly in the name of Murlidhar Awasthi in the revenue record and under the bona fide belief that the property is in the name of the vendor, therefore, the present applicant had got executed the registered sale deed in her favour. He also added that there is no iota of evidence so as to connect the present applicant with the alleged offence and the applicant is the owner of land in question as her name is recorded in the revenue records. He has drawn attention of the Court towards page 59 wherein copy of Khatauni is enclosed and added that it has been alleged in the F.I.R. that the property in question was transferred through registered sale deed by father-inlaw of the present applicant but the land in question is still recorded in the name of the applicant and the applicant has no knowledge that the land has ever been sold out, and, therefore, she has committed no offence. He further added that the applicant herself has been victimized by way of instituting the F.I.R. and she being a farmer is being harassed for her no fault. He further submits that the applicant is undertaking that she will co-operate with the investigation proceedings and she will remain present before the Investigating Officer as and when required. He

¶8

further submits that the applicant has explained criminal history and she is a law abiding citizen and she has acute apprehension of being arrested by the police, as such, she may be granted anticipatory bail which she will not misuse.

¶9

On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and she is the beneficiary and since the father-in-law has executed the sale deed in her favour, therefore, the act of forgery must be in the knowledge of the applicant. Thus, submission is that she has committed cheat and fraud, as such, she is not entitled to any relief.

¶10

Having heard submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that the applicant is a woman and her father-in-law, who was then owner of the land in question, executed the sale deed in her favour and, prima facie, there seems to be no offence committed by the applicant, might be, she is purchaser and beneficiary of the property in question. Further the counsel for the State could not substantiate that the applicant is not co-operating in the investigating proceedings.

¶11

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the record, this Court find it to be a fit case of anticipatory bail.

¶12

Till the next date of listing, the present applicant Vimlesh shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on her furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

(i) that the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶14

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

¶15

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶16

(iv) that in case charge sheet is submitted the applicant

¶17

shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶18

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶19

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

¶20

(vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶21

Issue notice to the opposite party no.2 returnable at an early date.

¶22

Steps be taken within one week.

¶23

List/put up this matter in the second week of January 2025.

¶24

In the meantime, learned counsel for the parties shall file the counter affidavit.

¶25

Order Date :- 3.12.2024 Ram Murti

¶26

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

Vimlesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimlesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Suresh Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Prabhakar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P.

Suresh Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rekha @ Dharmawati vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko

Bachchhan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Maya Devi Dixit vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another