Allowed

Deshraj @ Khuta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC8 May 2024BAIL/4830/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, disposed of a bail application by releasing the applicant on a personal bond. The Court emphasized the pendency of a related civil suit and the lack of specific apprehension of absconding or tampering with evidence as key factors for granting bail.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with a personal bond and two reliable sureties, subject to specific conditions regarding court appearances and filing undertakings.

Deshraj @ Khuta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:35434

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4830 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Deshraj @ Khuta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanat Singh,Sudhir Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶7

By means of the instant bail application, the applicant seeks bail in respect of FIR/Case Crime No.332/2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Unnao.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that as per the averments contained in the FIR, it is alleged that the complainant has been duped by the applicant and the coaccused.

¶9

It is stated by the complainant that her mother had executed a registered Will in her favour and after her death, the complainant, on the basis of the registered Will, wanted to mutate her name in respect of the property in dispute. The complainant being a lady and illiterate, she requested the coaccused Shri Krishna to help her in getting her name mutated.

¶10

It is stated that the co-accused Shri Krishna introduced her to the other co-accused namely Shiv Pratap Singh, who by profession is an Advocate.

¶11

It is stated that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.20,000/for getting her mutation done. The said co-accused is said to have got the complainant to sign on blank papers and thereafter assured that the mutation would be done. Subsequently, she was called at the seat of the co-accused where the co-accused Shiv Pratap Singh stated that there was some error which had to be rectified and for the aforesaid purpose again got some papers signed. On the pretext of getting the correction done, the coaccused got the sale-deed executed from the complainant in favour of the present applicant.

¶12

It is also alleged that no sale consideration was paid and she had

¶13

no intention to sell the property and the entire matter has been designed by the named persons in the FIR in order to usurp the property by fraudulent means.

¶14

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has paid the necessary sale consideration and had purchased the property, however, whether the consideration was passed to the complainant is not known as in the entire transaction, the co-accused Shiv Pratap Singh was managing the entire purchase/sale transaction.

¶15

It is also urged that the complainant has already instituted a suit for cancellation of the sale-deed bearing R.S. No.704/2023 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) South, Unnao and since the matter is purely civil in nature and the applicant is in jail since 30.06.2023, accordingly, the applicant, who otherwise has history of three cases as mentioned in Paragraph-17 out of which in Case Crime No.1177/2019, the proceedings have been quashed and in respect of two other cases bearing Case Crime No.2/2022 and 477/2015, the applicant is already on bail.

¶16

Learned A.G.A., on the basis of material in the case diary available with him, has opposed the prayer for bail, however, could not deny the fact that a suit for cancellation of the saledeed is still engaging attention of the Court concerned coupled with the fact that the other co-accused Shiv Pratap Singh has also been enlarged on bail by means of the order dated 01.02.2024.

¶17

Considering the rival submissions, the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record as well as considering the nature of allegations and accusation against the applicant, the severity of the punishment if convicted and the period of incarceration as well as the fact that no apprehension has been expressed by the learned AGA that the applicant is at the risk of fleeing justice or that he would tamper with evidence or influence any witness, hence, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶18

Let the applicant Deshraj @ Khuta involved in the aforesaid FIR/Case Crime Number be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶19

At the time of executing required sureties the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice.

¶20

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he

¶21

shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶22

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶25

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶26

Order Date :- 8.5.2024 Rakesh/-

¶27

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

Deshraj @ Khuta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deshraj @ Khuta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Islamuddin @ Chotu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Aizaz Khan @ Tinku Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Kim Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Savita Gupta and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Home Affairs, Lucknow and Others

C/M of Waqf Karbala Thru. Secy. Raja and others vs Uttar Pradesh Waqf Tribunal Through its Registrar and others

Komal Kumar @ Mantu vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Secrt. Lko.