High Court · 2022
Case Details
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Baljeet Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and learned State Counsel as well as perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 119 of 2024, under Sections 420/467/468/471/447/511/506 IPC, Police Station Chinhat, District Lucknow. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that he has not committed any offence and he has falsely been implicated in the matter. He submits that the dispute arose that the Will- deed, which was executed by the husband of the informant in favour of the applicant, is genuine or fake. He submits that in fact, the applicant had executed a registered agreement to sell in favour of the receiver and subsequently, the same got cancelled and as of now, the matter is pending before the court of civil competence so as to decide the genuineness of the Will-deed and, thus, the matter relates to civil dispute between the parties. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on a Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Syed Yaseer Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P. and another; Criminal Appeal No. 295 of 2022(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 7955 of 2021) decided on 28-02-2022. Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the case of the present applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of Judgment aforesaid. He next added that if there is any subsequent development that shall be the part of further investigation. Adding his argument he submits that the applicant has four cases criminal history which has been explained and the applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since06.11.2024 and he undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings, thus submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant, posing himself to be the grand-son, has committed forgery while getting executed a Will-deed in his favour and subsequently he executed an agreement to sell in favour of the receiver. Further submission is that after the aforesaid forgery, the applicant has again committed forgery and thus, he is involved in committing the offence. He also submits that the applicant has four cases criminal history and, as such, he is not entitled for any relief. Learned Counsel for the State has also supported the version of learned counsel for the complainant and submits that the applicant is not entitled for bail. Having considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, it reveals that the Will-deed in question, is challenged by the complainant before the civil court and the genuineness of the same is sub-judice; further it is admitted that that some Will-deed is executed and on the basis of the same, the applicant had executed a registered agreement to sell, whereas the Will-deed is being disputed and, therefore, prima facie, the dispute seems to be civil in nature; this Court has noticed that four cases criminal history has been explained and the applicant is languishing in jail since 06.11.2024 and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail. Let the applicant-Shiv Raj involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He 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; (3) 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.; and (4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 11.2.2025 kkv/
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Baljeet Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and learned State Counsel as well as perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 119 of 2024, under Sections 420/467/468/471/447/511/506 IPC, Police Station Chinhat, District Lucknow. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that he has not committed any offence and he has falsely been implicated in the matter. He submits that the dispute arose that the Will- deed, which was executed by the husband of the informant in favour of the applicant, is genuine or fake. He submits that in fact, the applicant had executed a registered agreement to sell in favour of the receiver and subsequently, the same got cancelled and as of now, the matter is pending before the court of civil competence so as to decide the genuineness of the Will-deed and, thus, the matter relates to civil dispute between the parties. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on a Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Syed Yaseer Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P. and another; Criminal Appeal No. 295 of 2022(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 7955 of 2021) decided on 28-02-2022. Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the case of the present applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of Judgment aforesaid. He next added that if there is any subsequent development that shall be the part of further investigation. Adding his argument he submits that the applicant has four cases criminal history which has been explained and the applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since06.11.2024 and he undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings, thus submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant, posing himself to be the grand-son, has committed forgery while getting executed a Will-deed in his favour and subsequently he executed an agreement to sell in favour of the receiver. Further submission is that after the aforesaid forgery, the applicant has again committed forgery and thus, he is involved in committing the offence. He also submits that the applicant has four cases criminal history and, as such, he is not entitled for any relief. Learned Counsel for the State has also supported the version of learned counsel for the complainant and submits that the applicant is not entitled for bail. Having considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, it reveals that the Will-deed in question, is challenged by the complainant before the civil court and the genuineness of the same is sub-judice; further it is admitted that that some Will-deed is executed and on the basis of the same, the applicant had executed a registered agreement to sell, whereas the Will-deed is being disputed and, therefore, prima facie, the dispute seems to be civil in nature; this Court has noticed that four cases criminal history has been explained and the applicant is languishing in jail since 06.11.2024 and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail. Let the applicant-Shiv Raj involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He 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; (3) 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.; and (4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 11.2.2025 kkv/