Govind Saraswat vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

Govind Saraswat vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail granted to applicant Govind Saraswat during the pendency of Complaint Case No. 1048 of 2016: release on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the conditions that (i) he makes himself available before the trial court as and when required; (ii) he makes no inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts so as to dissuade disclosure to the trial court; and (iii) he does not leave India without prior permission of the Court, depositing any passport with the S.S.P./S.P. concerned; in default of any condition the court concerned may cancel the anticipatory bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Govind Saraswat, facing prosecution in Complaint Case No. 1048 of 2016 under Sections 420, 120B I.P.C. (Police Station Mahavan, District Mathura) with a claimed role limited to typing the sale deed, is entitled to anticipatory bail.

Court's answer

Considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the nature of accusation, the role of the applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, the court concluded — expressly without expressing any opinion on the merits — that a case for anticipatory bail was made out.

Ratio / Principle

The applicant Govind Saraswat was ordered to be released on anticipatory bail during the pendency of the complaint case upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to enumerated conditions (availability before the trial court; no inducement, threat or promise to dissuade disclosure of facts; no leaving India without prior permission and deposit of passport, if any, with the S.S.P./S.P. concerned), with liberty to cancel the bail in default of any condition.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail under S.438 Cr.P.C. allowed — Govind Saraswat, whose assigned role (per counsel's submission) was confined to typing a sale deed, sought pre-arrest release pending Complaint Case No. 1048 of 2016 under Sections 420, 120B I.P.C. at P.S. Mahavan, District Mathura, arising from a second sale deed said to have been executed on 11.02.2016 by co-accused Vijendra Singh, guardian of minor Prashant, in favour of his son Nishant. Invoking the Supreme Court's anticipatory-bail criteria reproduced from Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 — nature and gravity of accusation, antecedents of the accused, possibility of fleeing justice, careful evaluation of available material and the exact role of the accused — and considering the applicant's limited role, absence of any specific allegation of fraud against him, bail already granted to other co-accused, absence of criminal antecedents and his undertaking to co-operate in trial, Vipin Chandra Dixit J. held, without expressing any opinion on the merits, that a case for anticipatory bail was made out. The applicant was directed to be released on a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount, conditioned on availability before the trial court, non-tampering with persons acquainted with the facts, and no departure from India without prior permission (passport, if any, to be deposited with the S.S.P./S.P.), with liberty to cancel the bail on breach of any condition. Order dated 3.1.2025.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:1632

Court No. - 70

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11906 of 2024 Applicant :- Govind Saraswat Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kartikey Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

Heard Sri Kartikey Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No. 1048 of 2016, under Sections 420, 120B I.P.C., Police Station Mahavan, District Mathura with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. One sale deed was executed by co-accused Vijendra Singh in favour of his son Prashant. Later on Vijendra Singh, who was guardian of minor Prashant has executed another sale deed in favour of his son namely Nishant on 11.02.2016. The applicant is typist and role assigned to the applicant is only to type the sale deed. The applicant is not beneficiary of alleged sale deed in any manner. It is further submitted that other co-accused have already been granted bail. There is no specific allegation of fraud against the applicant. The applicant has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and that no coercive process has been issued against the applicant so far. It is submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail.

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 , it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent

of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

Let the applicant Govind Saraswat shall be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of complaint case on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :-

(i) The applicant shall make himself available before trial court as and when required;

(ii) 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 him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the trial court;

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

In default of any of the conditions, the court concern shall be at liberty to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

Order Date :- 3.1.2025 sailesh

Digitally signed by :- SAILESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad