Allowed

Vivek Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Ministry of Home, Affairs Civil Sectt. Lko.

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2024ABAIL/731/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought anticipatory bail in a case of alleged forged sale deeds and payment of Rs.21,20,000 for plots. The court found prima facie a civil dispute, no money traceable in his account, relied on Sushila Aggarwal, and granted anticipatory bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, with conditions including cooperation, reporting to police within twenty days, and no departure from India without permission.

Vivek Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:60555

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 731 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Ministry Of Home, Affairs Civil Sectt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Singh,Gyanesh Kumar Singh

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhishek Yadav,Sunil Kumar Maurya

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

Vakalatnama filed by Shri Amit Kumar Singh Suryavanshi, Advocate on behalf of the complainant is taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for respondent State and learned counsel for the complainant.

¶9

The present application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.277 of 2023 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 406 I.P.C., Police Station Bijnore, Lucknow.

¶10

In the First Information Report it is alleged that relative of the complainant Vivek Kumar Pandey- the applicant

¶11

is an Advocate at Allahabad and he is in the business of selling and purchasing of plots. His business friend Mayank Kumar Verma is of Lucknow. He was told by Vivek Kumar Pandey that he was having a firm in the name of Nexxo Colonisers and Builders Private Limited in the partnership of Mayank Kumar Verma. On the promise of providing cheap and best plot, Rs.21,20,000/- were paid by the complainant which have been transferred in the account of accused persons. Out of which Rs.3,50,000/- has been transferred in the account of Vivek Kumar Pandey and Rs. 11,00,000/- have been paid in cash to Vivek Kumar Pandy and Mayank Kumar Verma. After receiving the amount Vivek Kumar Pandy got prepared the sale deeds on 29.3.2022. One is for 1188 square feet from Gata No. 1168/0.6430 hectare, village Kalli West Tehsil Sarojininagar Lucknow. Second deed is recorded for Gata No. 997/0.124 hectare, plot no. 31 measuring 1188 sq. ft., village Beti, tehsil Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow in favour of the complainant by Mayank Kumar Verma. Later on it was found by the complainant that both the sale deeds are forged documents. It was found that both the deeds were prepared by Vivek Pandey and Mayank Kumar Verma on the basis of fake documents. On Gata No. 997/0.124 hectare, the names of Ram Dinesh, Ram Naresh, Shiv Naresh, all sons of Siddhnath and Smt. Kamala wife of Siddhnath and Sarvesh Kumar are registered in the transferable landholding and it is in their possession. Similarly, on Gata No. 1168, Santosh Kumar son of Moolchand is mentioned as transferable

¶12

landholding.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is neither seller nor purchaser or witness of the sale deed. The alleged amount which is said to have been transferred to the applicant in his SBI account, has not been transferred at all. This fact is evident from the perusal of the bank statement of the applicant. He further submits that even as per the contents of paragraph 20 of the counter affidavit filed by the complainant, story of the F.I.R. that the complainant paid the money to the applicant, has been falsified. He submits that the complainant has not filed any suit for cancellation of sale deed till date. The applicant is not a previous convict. Investigation is pending. The applicant undertakes to cooperate in the investigation.

¶14

Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. have opposed the bail prayer.

¶15

Perused the record.

¶16

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record, the bank statement of the applicant so also the counter affidavit filed by the complainant particularly paragraph 20, and the facts that the applicant is neither seller nor purchaser or witness in the sale deed, no suit for cancellation of sale deed has been filed, prima facie, it appears to be a civil dispute, neither the respondents have been able to show that he has received any amount, as alleged, in his bank account as also considering the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal

¶17

and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1 and without entering into the merit of the case, it would be appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶18

The anticipatory bail application is allowed . It is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned with the following conditions:-

¶19

(i) The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witnesses.

¶20

(ii) The accused-applicant shall report to the concerned police station/investigating officer within twenty days from today and will remain present as and when the arresting officer /I.O./ S.H.O. concerned call (s) for investigation/interrogation.

¶21

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

¶22

(iv) In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection.

¶23

Order Date :- 3.9.2024

¶24

Madhu

¶25

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

Vivek Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Ministry of Home, Affairs Civil Sectt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Ministry of Home, Affairs Civil Sectt. Lko.

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

Mata Badal and Others Vs State of U.P.

Parmeshwar and Another Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Raees Alias Mohd. Rahis Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Shobhit Yadav @ Mohit Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rinku Devi @ Radhika vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home

Sukram Pal Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy., Animal Husbandry Deptt. Lko. and Others