Dismissed

Balbeer Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC6 Feb 2024ABA/82/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application rejected where allegations in the FIR were serious: a gang allegedly prepared forged powers of attorney and sold the informant's inherited land; one applicant received gifted land purchased through a forged power of attorney and another was power of attorney holder in a related suit. The court found no ground for anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application rejected.

SL.
No

Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings or
directions and
Registrar’s order
with Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

06.02.2024

ABA No. 82 of 2024
Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Heard Mr. Abhishek Verma, learned
counsel through video conferencing along with
Mr. Dheeraj Joshi, learned counsel for the
applicants, as well as Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy
Advocate General along with Mr. S.C.Dumka,
learned AGA for the State and Mr. Piyush Garg,
learned counsel for the informant – Smt. Sheetal
Mund.

2. This Anticipatory Bail Application is
moved by the applicants in connection with FIR
No. 453 of 2023 under Sections 420, 465, 467,
468, 471, 120-B & 506 of IPC, registered at P.S.
Patel Nagar, Dehradun.
3. I have perused the First Information
Report.
4. From the bare perusal of the First
Information Report, it appears that the accused
persons, including the present applicants is a
gang which is being operated in District Dehradun
and Saharanpur, whereby forged power of
attorneys are being prepared and on the strength
of the power of attorney, the lands of the land
owners, like the informant, are being sold to
different persons.

4. In the case at hand, the informan lodged the First Information Report against t persons including the applicants contending she is the owner of the land comprising in k	t has hose that hsra
Nos. 372(ka), 372(kha0, 372(ga), 372(	gha),
371(ga), 372(da),373, 374 and 375 of M	ajra,
Dehradun, District Dehradun, This land belo	nged
to her father and after the death of her fat	her -
Sadhu Singh, the informant is the only legal	heir
of late Sadhu Singh, who purchased this lan years ago and the said land was already reco	d 75 rded
in the revenue records in the name of	the
informant-Sheetal Mandu. 5. According to the contents of the	first
information report, a forged power of attorn	ey of
the mother of the informant was prepare	d in
village Nakud of District Saharanpur by	the
accused persons and it is averred in the	first
information report that the mother of	the
informant had never visited village Nakud and	the
power of attorney was a forged one, which	was
prepared by Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh	S/of
Tej Singh, Prakash Singh S/o Bhagwan Singh	and
Gurdeep Singh S/o Bhagwan Singh	and
accordingly, the first information report	was
lodged against these persons by the mothe	r of

4. In the case at hand, the informan
lodged the First Information Report against t
persons including the applicants contending
she is the owner of the land comprising in k

t has
hose
that
hsra

Nos. 372(ka), 372(kha0, 372(ga), 372(

gha),

371(ga), 372(da),373, 374 and 375 of M

ajra,

Dehradun, District Dehradun, This land belo

nged

to her father and after the death of her fat

her -

Sadhu Singh, the informant is the only legal

heir

of late Sadhu Singh, who purchased this lan
years ago and the said land was already reco

d 75
rded

in the revenue records in the name of

the

informant-Sheetal Mandu.
5. According to the contents of the

first

information report, a forged power of attorn

ey of

the mother of the informant was prepare

d in

village Nakud of District Saharanpur by

the

accused persons and it is averred in the

first

information report that the mother of

the

informant had never visited village Nakud and

the

power of attorney was a forged one, which

was

prepared by Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh

S/of

Tej Singh, Prakash Singh S/o Bhagwan Singh

and

Gurdeep
Singh
S/o
Bhagwan
Singh

and

accordingly, the first information report

was

lodged against these persons by the mothe

r of

the informant and a charge-sheet under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC was submitted by the
Investigating Agency against those persons.
6. Now, after taking the benefit of the
said power of attorney, the land transaction has
been entered into between them. 7. So far as the applicants are concerned,
the applicant accused No. 1 was gifted the land of
the informant through a gift deed by one
Sukhvinder Singh, who purchased this land, using the forged power of attorney which was prepared
by the accused person and the applicant No. 2
filed an Original Suit No. 22 of 2017, Sukhvinder
Singh Vs. Smt. Niranjan Kaur and Sheetal in the
Court of Civil Judge, Dehradun, in which the
applicant No. 2 was the power of attorney holder
and Mr. Sukhvinder Singh is the person, who
purchased the land by way of a forged power of attorney.
8. Having considered the allegations
levelled in the first information report which are
very serious, I do not find any reason to grant
anticipatory bail to the applicants, the same is
hereby rejected. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) Vacation Judge 06.02.2024 Mahinder/

the informant and a charge-sheet under Sections
420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC was submitted by the

Investigating Agency against those persons.

6. Now, after taking the benefit of the

said power of attorney, the land transaction has

been entered into between them.
7. So far as the applicants are concerned,

the applicant accused No. 1 was gifted the land of

the informant through a gift deed by one

Sukhvinder Singh, who purchased this land, using
the forged power of attorney which was prepared

by the accused person and the applicant No. 2

filed an Original Suit No. 22 of 2017, Sukhvinder

Singh Vs. Smt. Niranjan Kaur and Sheetal in the

Court of Civil Judge, Dehradun, in which the

applicant No. 2 was the power of attorney holder

and Mr. Sukhvinder Singh is the person, who

purchased the land by way of a forged power of
attorney.

8. Having considered the allegations

levelled in the first information report which are

very serious, I do not find any reason to grant

anticipatory bail to the applicants, the same is

hereby rejected.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
Vacation Judge
06.02.2024
Mahinder/

Balbeer Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balbeer Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sahab Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Hotel Happy Home Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sanpreet Singh Ajmani Vs State of Uttarakhand

Akhil Kumar Alias Sonu Vs State of Uttarakhand

Dinesh Kumar Vs Pradeep Kumar

Kaliyar Steel Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Vs C.R. Metals