Allowed

Vivek Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2025ABAIL/368/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application in a land-sale fraud FIR where the applicant was not a party to the disputed sale deed. Interim bail granted earlier was confirmed after two years with no counter affidavit filed, making the interim order absolute subject to trial cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; interim order dated 15.02.2023 made absolute, release on personal bond and two sureties subject to stated conditions.

Vivek Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Court No. - 29

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 368 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Vivek Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. And Another

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Satendra Kumar (Singh),Abhishek Misra

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhishek Dwivedi

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Abhishek Misra, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Puneet Kumar Yadav, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records.

¶8

The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.77 of 2020 under Sections 420, 467 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Krishna Nagar, District Lucknow .

¶9

The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by means of the order dated 15.02.2023, which reads as follows:-

¶10

"The applicant has moved the present application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying for grant of anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.77 of 2020 under sections 420, 467 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Krishna Nagar, district Lucknow.

¶11

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

¶12

The prosecution case is that the informant has purchased a piece of land, measuring 1350 sq. feet of Khasra No.60-Sa Prem Nagar, Majra Bargawan, Tehsil and district Lucknow through a registered sale deed from Smt. Neelam Sharma and Smt. Sapna Verma for Rs.20 lakh and thereafter, she started raising construction over it. In the meantime, one Rajveer Singh Rawat objected and got stopped the construction work of the informant. The said Rajveer Singh showed her a sale deed executed earlier pertaining to same piece of land. Thereafter, the informant communicated with the sellers Neelam Sharma and Sapna Verma asking them as to why they cheated her with Rs.20 lakhs despite the fact that the plot did not belong to them. The complainant purchased the said piece of land after availing loan from HDFC bank and is depositing its instalments since February, 2018.

¶13

It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the applicant is not a party to the sale deed nor is a witness to it. As a matter of fact, land measuring 2700 sq.ft was purchased by one Amit Shukla son of Santosh Shukla, resident of Canal Colony, Cantt. Road, Lucknow and Mahesh Narain Awasthi from Manna Lal with transferable rights through a registered sale deed dated 20.9.2011. Later on, Amit Shukla and Mahesh Narain Awasthi

¶14

sold it through registered sale deed to Neelam Sharma and Sapna Verma, co-accused. The complainant purchased from Neelam Sharma and Sapna Verma northern part of the land measuring 1350sq.ft through a registered sale deed dated 28.2.2019. Remaining southern part of the land was sold by Smt. Neelam Sharma and Smt. Sapna Verma to one Sri Atma Prakash Pandey through registered sale deed dated 22.4.2019.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of the court towards the sale deeds which are on record and submits that there is no ambiguity in the identification of the land either purchased by the predecessor in the interest of Smt. Neelam Sharma and Smt Sapna Verma or sold to the complainant and Atma Prakash Pandey.

¶16

It is next submitted that the applicant has explained the criminal history in para 59 of the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application. He further submits that the applicant has cooperated in the investigation. Charge sheet has been filed. He undertakes on behalf of the applicant that the applicant shall cooperate in the trial.

¶17

Issue notice to private respondent No.2.

¶18

List on 23.3.2023.

¶19

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer made by the applicant's counsel. He is allowed fifteen days' time to file objections.

¶20

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation, the sale deeds and the fact that the applicant is not a party to the sale deed, the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial and gravity of offence, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case in the light of judgment of Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, subject to his cooperation in the trial.

¶21

In view of the above as also keeping in view of the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC OnLine 98, the accused applicant is directed to surrender before trial court if he is summoned to face trial for offence in question after filing of the charge sheet. The accused applicant shall be released on bail by the trial court on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, with the following conditions.

¶22

(i) 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or tamper with the evidence;

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses."

¶29

In spite of expiry of a period of about two years, no counter affidavit has been filed opposing the averments made in the anticipatory bail application and the affidavit filed in support thereof.

¶30

The learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant has already furnished bail bonds in furtherance of interim order dated 15.02.2023.

¶31

In the aforesaid circumstances of the case, this Court has no reason to take any view other than one taken while granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶32

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed and the interim order dated 15.02.2023 is made absolute.

¶33

Order Date :- 7.2.2025/Raj

¶34

Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vivek Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Similar cases

Sagar Pawar Alias Sawan vs State of U.P.

Amitabh Kumar Srivastava @ Amitabh Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Lko

Mukesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Home

Raju @ Sahwan @ Asif Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Anurag Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Bablu Pasi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.