Allowed

Ajay Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Allahabad HC11 Dec 2024ABAIL/2713/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed anticipatory bail to applicant Ajay Kumar in a forgery case involving a sale deed, finding him a bonafide purchaser who cooperated with investigation, relying on Apex Court dictum.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; applicant directed to surrender if summoned; to be released on personal bond and two sureties with standard conditions.

Ajay Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2713 of 2024

¶2

Applicant :- Ajay Kumar

¶3

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Sarvesh Tripathi,Sheo Mani Tripathi,Vijay Pathak

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending his arrest in Case Crime 92/2015, under Sections 419/420/467/468/471 1.P.C., P.S. Sammanpur, District Ambedkar Nagar.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

The prosecution case is that earlier in the year 1989, an agreement to sell was executed by co-accused Balli in favour of the informant. The informant took the possession on that land and thereafter the co-accused Balli filed a civil suit which was decided in favour of the informant on 14.03.1996. It is alleged that despite knowing the fact that co-accused Balli is not the owner of the land, by forging the papers, a sale deed has been executed by co-accused Balli in favour of the co-accused Ajay Kumar in which the present applicant is a witness.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that allegation in the prosecution case is that co-accused Balli has executed a sale deed by committing forgery. It has been further submitted that the applicant is a bonafide purchaser. He had no knowledge that the alleged land belongs to the informant. He has purchased the said land relying on the entry in the revenue record which is on record with the bail application. Charge sheet in the matter has

¶11

been filed. The applicant has cooperated in the investigation and further undertakes to cooperate in the trial. Co-accused Dhirendra Pratap Singh @ Pintu Singh who was also a marginal witness has filed anticipatory bail application No. 42 of 2023 which has been allowed vide order dated 10.01.2023. The applicant has explained criminal history of one case in the bail application.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application, however, could not dispute the fact that charge-sheet in the matter has been filed.

¶13

Issue notice to opposite party no. 2.

¶14

List on 09.01.2025.

¶15

Pleadings to be completed in the meantime.

¶16

On due consideration to the fact that the offences are triable by magistrate; the applicant is a bonafide purchaser and the coaccused has been granted anticipatory bail; he has cooperated in the investigation and further undertakes to cooperate in the trial, 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. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

¶17

In view of the above, since, charge-sheet in the matter has been filed, the accused applicant is directed to surrender before trial court, if he is summoned to face trial for offence in question. The accused applicant 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:-

¶18

(1) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any Inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with

¶19

the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or tamper with the evidence;

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

Order Date :- 11.12.2024

¶26

R.C.

¶27

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

Ajay Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Keshav Goyal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Chand Babu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Virendra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Firoz Ahmad @ Raju vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Satyendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Abhay Singh @ Monu Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko