High Court

statement or submission made by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is not the beneficiary of illicit transaction of the alleged sale deed dated 31.05.2023. Learned AGA has referred C.D. No.11 and submitted that applicant has withdrawn Rs.16,50,000/- from the account of Sukhdevi, who is the main accused, who executed the sale deed through cheque, therefore, he is the beneficiary of the said transaction. At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicant has clarified that applicant has only withdrawn the money on the pretext of Sukhdevi and not taken the money as beneficiary.

5. Mr. S.K. Ojha, learned AGA for the State has further submitted that investigation is still going on and charge sheet has to be filed within few weeks. There are credible material on record to link the present applicant. It is further submitted that co-accused, Anand alias Mohit has been granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on ground that he is not assigned the role of any marginal witness or selling or purchasing the land in question, he was just present at the time of the institution of sale deed, therefore, present applicant cannot take the benefit of bail of co-accused, Anand alias Mohit. In the case of Kamlesh Chauhan alias Nandu, who was granted anticipatory bail by Co-ordinate Bench, was also not assigned any role in execution of alleged sale deed, therefore, benefit of these bail orders vehemently relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant, during argument, may not be taken for consideration to enlarge the present applicant on bail. It is further submitted that the present applicant has been assigned the role of marginal witness and also stated that applicant was benefited by more than Rs.16,00,000/- (Sixteen Lacs). It is also submitted that the original land holder of alleged sale deed was Smt. Sukhdevi alias Ramshree, wife of Jagdish Singh, the imposter Sukhdevi was not the actual Sukhdevi. Learned AGA for the State has further submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant has miserably failed to make out any case for releasing the applicant on bail.

6. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State, perused the contents made in bail application and material available on record.

7. It is admitted fact that the applicant is the man of clean antecedents and there is no previous criminal history against him. I have perused C.D. No.11 dated 22.03.2024, which is placed before the Court along with the case diary. As per the Investigating Officer, the alleged amount of Rs.16,50,000/- has been withdrawn by the applicant, but learned counsel for applicant has vehemently opposed the said statement and clarify that the said amount was withdrawn by the applicant on the pretext of main accused, Sukhdevi and withdrawn amount was handed over to Sukhdevi. Applicant is the marginal witness of alleged sale deed as stated in C.D.No.11. There is no credible evidence to link the applicant to the instant offence, at this stage investigation is still going on; charge sheet has yet to be filed; there is dim chance for completion of trial in near future;

8. Taking into consideration all the entirety of the matter as discussed above, without expressing any finding or opinion on merits of the case, the applicant is releasing on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant - Varun Kumar, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant 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 proceed against him in accordance with law.

10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. . Order Date :- 2.5.2025 Atul (Chandra Dhari Singh, J.)

statement or submission made by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is not the beneficiary of illicit transaction of the alleged sale deed dated 31.05.2023. Learned AGA has referred C.D. No.11 and submitted that applicant has withdrawn Rs.16,50,000/- from the account of Sukhdevi, who is the main accused, who executed the sale deed through cheque, therefore, he is the beneficiary of the said transaction. At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicant has clarified that applicant has only withdrawn the money on the pretext of Sukhdevi and not taken the money as beneficiary.

5. Mr. S.K. Ojha, learned AGA for the State has further submitted that investigation is still going on and charge sheet has to be filed within few weeks. There are credible material on record to link the present applicant. It is further submitted that co-accused, Anand alias Mohit has been granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on ground that he is not assigned the role of any marginal witness or selling or purchasing the land in question, he was just present at the time of the institution of sale deed, therefore, present applicant cannot take the benefit of bail of co-accused, Anand alias Mohit. In the case of Kamlesh Chauhan alias Nandu, who was granted anticipatory bail by Co-ordinate Bench, was also not assigned any role in execution of alleged sale deed, therefore, benefit of these bail orders vehemently relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant, during argument, may not be taken for consideration to enlarge the present applicant on bail. It is further submitted that the present applicant has been assigned the role of marginal witness and also stated that applicant was benefited by more than Rs.16,00,000/- (Sixteen Lacs). It is also submitted that the original land holder of alleged sale deed was Smt. Sukhdevi alias Ramshree, wife of Jagdish Singh, the imposter Sukhdevi was not the actual Sukhdevi. Learned AGA for the State has further submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant has miserably failed to make out any case for releasing the applicant on bail.

6. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State, perused the contents made in bail application and material available on record.

7. It is admitted fact that the applicant is the man of clean antecedents and there is no previous criminal history against him. I have perused C.D. No.11 dated 22.03.2024, which is placed before the Court along with the case diary. As per the Investigating Officer, the alleged amount of Rs.16,50,000/- has been withdrawn by the applicant, but learned counsel for applicant has vehemently opposed the said statement and clarify that the said amount was withdrawn by the applicant on the pretext of main accused, Sukhdevi and withdrawn amount was handed over to Sukhdevi. Applicant is the marginal witness of alleged sale deed as stated in C.D.No.11. There is no credible evidence to link the applicant to the instant offence, at this stage investigation is still going on; charge sheet has yet to be filed; there is dim chance for completion of trial in near future;

8. Taking into consideration all the entirety of the matter as discussed above, without expressing any finding or opinion on merits of the case, the applicant is releasing on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant - Varun Kumar, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant 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 proceed against him in accordance with law.

10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. . Order Date :- 2.5.2025 Atul (Chandra Dhari Singh, J.)