Allowed

Rabia v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko.

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2024BAIL/106/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application for offences under IPC Sections 419, 420, and 406, the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, allowed bail. The court noted the applicant was falsely implicated in a property dispute involving her husband and was not a party to the executed sale deed. Bail was granted subject to conditions preventing tampering with evidence and ensuring cooperation in trial.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Rabia is released on bail by furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in like amount with conditions against tampering with witnesses or committing further crimes.

Rabia vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:1171

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 106 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rabia Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Learned AGA informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including upto date case diary and the charge sheet has already been submitted in this case.

¶7

During the course of deliberation a copy of the sale deed of date 30.6.2022 executed by the husband of the applicant in favour of the informant, is placed on record for perusal and the same is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Shri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the accused/applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Rabia for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 697 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 406 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda, during trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the accused-applicant has falsely been implicated in the instant case and all the averments made in the First Information Report are false, fabricated and could not be believed.

¶11

While drawing the attention of this Court towards the copy of the sale deed filed today, which has also been taken on record, submits that it was agreed between the parties to sell/ purchase the land which has been mentioned in the sale deed and the sale deed as agreed, has been executed by the husband of the applicant and subsequently by taking the advantage of under valued transaction the instant FIR has been lodged.

¶12

It is vehemently submitted that the terms of a written agreement or registered document may only be inferred from

¶13

the documents itself and no oral account with regard to the same is sustainable in the normal circumstances and therefore the allegation of receiving money of alienating more land has been carved out specifically. Moreover, the dispute is between the husband of the applicant and the informant and the applicant is not having any concern with that. She is household lady and is in jail in this case since 2.12.2023. She is not a party to any agreement or sale deed and there is no apprehension that the accused-applicant after release on bail, may flee from the process of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty. She is also not having any criminal history. Charge sheet in this case has already been submitted.

¶14

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer for bail but could not dispute the other factual submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that charged offences are triable by the Magistrate and charge sheet in this case is shown to have been submitted. The applicant is in jail in this case since 2.12.2023. Admittedly she is not a party to any agreement or execution of documents. She is also not having any criminal antecedent. Her presence may be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

¶16

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶17

Let the applicant- Rabia involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶19

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be

¶22

a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶23

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶24

Observations made herein-above are only for the purpose of disposal of bail application and the same shall not have any bearing on the trial of the case.

¶25

Order Date :- 5.1.2024 Muk

¶26

Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rabia v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rabia v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kaushal Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Atul Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Amardeep Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Pankaj Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ajay Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Balla Ram and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.