In Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State

Applicant :- Pavan Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant- Pavan Sharma seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 78 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Izzatnagar, District- Bareilly.

3. The plot in question was sold by co-accused Vipin Kumar Yadav in favour of wife of the informant on 22.07.2022 but subsequently the informant came to know that Manohar Lal, the earlier owner of the property from whom it was claimed by the co-accused Vipin Kumar Yadav that he has purchased that property, had never sold that property in favour of the co-accused Vipin Kumar Yadav rather he had sold this property much earlier and by this fraudulent act monitory loss was caused to the informant and his wife. FIR was lodged on 06.02.2023 and investigation started, which is going on.

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant is false. Investigation is going on in the matter. It is further submitted that co-accused Vipin Kumar Yadav is a bona fide purchaser of the land, he had purchased that land by way of registered sale deed from the previous owner of the property Manohar Lal and he had absolutely no knowledge that Manohar Lal disposed of this property to some other person much earlier. It is further submitted that after paying requisite consideration amount the co-accused Vipin Kumar Yadav has purchased the property in question. It is further submitted that no civil suit regarding cancellation of sale deed is pending. It is further submitted that the criminal antecedents of the applicant has been well explained in supplementary affidavit. He is neither vendor nor vendee or witness of the alleged sale deed and however, he has not been beneficiary of the transaction in any way and no consideration has been passed in his favour. The applicant is cooperating with the investigation of the case and is entitled for anticipatory bail. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

6. In the present matter investigation is going on and the applicant is said to be cooperative with the investigation. The matter prima facie relates to civil nature.

7. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

8. In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

9. Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court.

10. The application is allowed accordingly.

11. In the event of arrest of the applicant, the shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (ii) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office. (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

12. In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim protection granted to the applicant. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Vikram VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Applicant :- Pavan Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant- Pavan Sharma seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 78 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Izzatnagar, District- Bareilly.

3. The plot in question was sold by co-accused Vipin Kumar Yadav in favour of wife of the informant on 22.07.2022 but subsequently the informant came to know that Manohar Lal, the earlier owner of the property from whom it was claimed by the co-accused Vipin Kumar Yadav that he has purchased that property, had never sold that property in favour of the co-accused Vipin Kumar Yadav rather he had sold this property much earlier and by this fraudulent act monitory loss was caused to the informant and his wife. FIR was lodged on 06.02.2023 and investigation started, which is going on.

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant is false. Investigation is going on in the matter. It is further submitted that co-accused Vipin Kumar Yadav is a bona fide purchaser of the land, he had purchased that land by way of registered sale deed from the previous owner of the property Manohar Lal and he had absolutely no knowledge that Manohar Lal disposed of this property to some other person much earlier. It is further submitted that after paying requisite consideration amount the co-accused Vipin Kumar Yadav has purchased the property in question. It is further submitted that no civil suit regarding cancellation of sale deed is pending. It is further submitted that the criminal antecedents of the applicant has been well explained in supplementary affidavit. He is neither vendor nor vendee or witness of the alleged sale deed and however, he has not been beneficiary of the transaction in any way and no consideration has been passed in his favour. The applicant is cooperating with the investigation of the case and is entitled for anticipatory bail. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

6. In the present matter investigation is going on and the applicant is said to be cooperative with the investigation. The matter prima facie relates to civil nature.

7. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

8. In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

9. Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court.

10. The application is allowed accordingly.

11. In the event of arrest of the applicant, the shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (ii) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office. (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

12. In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim protection granted to the applicant. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Vikram VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad