High Court

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Akash Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri Romit Seth, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No. 307 of 2022, under Sections 420,467,468,471 I.P.C., P.S.- Kotwali, District- Sitapur. From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 24.4.2024, following order was passed wherein the present applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail:- " 1. Heard Shri M.E. Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, as well as Shri Romit Seth, learned counsel for the informant- complainant, and perused the record. Supplementary affidavit, filed on behalf of the applicant, is taken on record.

2. This application has been moved by the applicant- Shashank Deep for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No.0307 of 2022, under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC lodged at police station Kotwali, district Sitapur.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of false implication. Even if the case of the prosecution, as is emerging from the record, is taken as it is, no title has been transferred in favour of the applicant and, only on the basis of an agreement to sell, the main ingredient of section 420 IPC i.e. wrongful loss or wrongful gain may not be inferred against the applicant in absence of transferring any right or property in his name. It is also submitted that in absence of any wrongful gain or wrongful loss caused to the informant, the relevant penal provision of the IPC may not attract against the applicant and none of the purchaser of the land from deceased- Lalji Lal, who is shown to have manufactured a forged sale-deed, has been arrayed as accused in the FIR. It is also highlighted that one of the co-accused- Vinod Kumar, who is standing on similar footing as the applicant, has been granted protection from arrest vide order dated 22.03.2024 passed in criminal misc. anticipatory bail application no.650 of 2024.

4. Shri Romit Seth, learned counsel for the informant/complainant, submits that the land is owned by a Trust, which was not even possessed by Lalji Lal (since died) or his successors and has been sold and with regard to the same land an agreement to sell has been executed in favour of the applicant and co-accused persons and, therefore, it is a case of fraud being committed with regard to the land owned by a Trust.

5. Be that as it may, there cannot be any dispute that the litigation between the parties with regard to the land in question is pending before the Board of Revenue as well as before a coordinate bench of this court.

6. Having regard to the request made on behalf of informant/complainant, two weeks time is granted for the purpose of filing counter affidavit/objection.

7. Let this case be listed on 08.05.2024.

8. It is provided that till the next date of listing, in the event of arrest of the applicant- Shashank Deep, involved in the above noted case, under any process of the trial court or on his appearance before the trial court within 15 days from today i.e. 08.05.2024, he shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned, subject to the following conditions:- (i). The applicant, if not arrested earlier, shall appear before the trial court within 15 days from today i.e. till 08.05.2024 and cooperate in the trial and shall not seek any adjournment when the prosecution witness would be in attendance. (ii). In case of further investigation or re-investigation the applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and make himself/herself available as and when required by the Investigating officer of the case, even for the recovery of any fact. (iii). The applicant shall not make any attempt to influence the prosecution witnesses and will also not commit any crime during his/her release on anticipatory bail. (iv). The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and specially when the prosecution witnesses are present in court. (v). 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.

9. If in the opinion of the trial court default of any of the condition placed above 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 shall proceed against him/her in accordance with law.

10. It is clarified that all the observations contained in this order are only for disposal of this anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial proceedings in any manner." From perusal of the order dated 24.4.2024, it transpires that learned State Counsel was directed to file counter affidavit, but the same has not been filed as yet. Learned State counsel as well as the counsel for the complainant have failed to demonstrate that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on an interim anticipatory bail after thoroughly considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the State and the counsel for the complainant have also failed to submit any fact that the applicant is not cooperating with the investigation proceedings or otherwise any glaring fact which can adversely affect the merit of the case. In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant namely, Shashank Deep till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this order. Order Date :- 5.2.2025 Shravan

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Akash Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri Romit Seth, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No. 307 of 2022, under Sections 420,467,468,471 I.P.C., P.S.- Kotwali, District- Sitapur. From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 24.4.2024, following order was passed wherein the present applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail:- " 1. Heard Shri M.E. Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, as well as Shri Romit Seth, learned counsel for the informant- complainant, and perused the record. Supplementary affidavit, filed on behalf of the applicant, is taken on record.

2. This application has been moved by the applicant- Shashank Deep for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No.0307 of 2022, under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC lodged at police station Kotwali, district Sitapur.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of false implication. Even if the case of the prosecution, as is emerging from the record, is taken as it is, no title has been transferred in favour of the applicant and, only on the basis of an agreement to sell, the main ingredient of section 420 IPC i.e. wrongful loss or wrongful gain may not be inferred against the applicant in absence of transferring any right or property in his name. It is also submitted that in absence of any wrongful gain or wrongful loss caused to the informant, the relevant penal provision of the IPC may not attract against the applicant and none of the purchaser of the land from deceased- Lalji Lal, who is shown to have manufactured a forged sale-deed, has been arrayed as accused in the FIR. It is also highlighted that one of the co-accused- Vinod Kumar, who is standing on similar footing as the applicant, has been granted protection from arrest vide order dated 22.03.2024 passed in criminal misc. anticipatory bail application no.650 of 2024.

4. Shri Romit Seth, learned counsel for the informant/complainant, submits that the land is owned by a Trust, which was not even possessed by Lalji Lal (since died) or his successors and has been sold and with regard to the same land an agreement to sell has been executed in favour of the applicant and co-accused persons and, therefore, it is a case of fraud being committed with regard to the land owned by a Trust.

5. Be that as it may, there cannot be any dispute that the litigation between the parties with regard to the land in question is pending before the Board of Revenue as well as before a coordinate bench of this court.

6. Having regard to the request made on behalf of informant/complainant, two weeks time is granted for the purpose of filing counter affidavit/objection.

7. Let this case be listed on 08.05.2024.

8. It is provided that till the next date of listing, in the event of arrest of the applicant- Shashank Deep, involved in the above noted case, under any process of the trial court or on his appearance before the trial court within 15 days from today i.e. 08.05.2024, he shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned, subject to the following conditions:- (i). The applicant, if not arrested earlier, shall appear before the trial court within 15 days from today i.e. till 08.05.2024 and cooperate in the trial and shall not seek any adjournment when the prosecution witness would be in attendance. (ii). In case of further investigation or re-investigation the applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and make himself/herself available as and when required by the Investigating officer of the case, even for the recovery of any fact. (iii). The applicant shall not make any attempt to influence the prosecution witnesses and will also not commit any crime during his/her release on anticipatory bail. (iv). The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and specially when the prosecution witnesses are present in court. (v). 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.

9. If in the opinion of the trial court default of any of the condition placed above 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 shall proceed against him/her in accordance with law.

10. It is clarified that all the observations contained in this order are only for disposal of this anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial proceedings in any manner." From perusal of the order dated 24.4.2024, it transpires that learned State Counsel was directed to file counter affidavit, but the same has not been filed as yet. Learned State counsel as well as the counsel for the complainant have failed to demonstrate that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on an interim anticipatory bail after thoroughly considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the State and the counsel for the complainant have also failed to submit any fact that the applicant is not cooperating with the investigation proceedings or otherwise any glaring fact which can adversely affect the merit of the case. In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant namely, Shashank Deep till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this order. Order Date :- 5.2.2025 Shravan