High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2629 of 2023 Applicant :- Balram Budhrani Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vipul Kumar Singh,Amit Daga Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vikas Tiwari
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Balram Budhrani in Case Crime No. 580 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469 and 471 I.P.C., Police Station - Kotwali, District Jhansi. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 3. It has been argued 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 are false. It is further submitted that applicant has been falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that no excess land has been sold in favour of the informant by the accused-applicant more than his share in the family property. It is further alleged that out of the whole consideration amount, which was Rs. 69 lacs, a cheque of Rs. 40 lacs was given by the informant which has been dishonoured by the Bank and proceeding under Section 138 N.I. Act has been started by the accused-applicant against the informant of the case. It is further submitted that prior to the execution of the sale-deed a consent agreement was also executed between the parties to the transaction. It is further submitted that a civil suit for cancellation of the sale-deed in question is already pending. The investigation of the case is going on and the accused- applicant is fully co-operating with the I.O. of the case. It is further submitted that criminal history of the applicant is explained by way of supplementary affidavit. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the accused-applicant was not the owner of the whole subject matter i.e. the land in question, which was sold to the informant. It is further submitted that by way of cheating the accused-applicant along with other accused persons caused a huge monetary loss to the informant. It is further submitted that when the informant came to know about fraud committed against him by the accused-persons, he himself instructed to the Bank to stop payment of the cheque valuing Rs. 40 lacs. It is further submitted that a huge loss has been occurred to the informant and the accused-applicant is not entitled for any assistance by this Court. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is alleged in the FIR that the accused- applicant sold a land in favour of the informant in excess of what he actually owned. It is further alleged that consideration amount was Rs. 69 lacs, which was fully misappropriated by the accused-applicant and a huge loss occurred to the informant. FIR was lodged and investigation started. After investigation final report was submitted but by order of high officials of police further investigation is going on at present. 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, likelihood 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, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, the pendency of civil suit between the parties, without expressing any opinion on 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, he 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 the 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 him / her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (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 :- 19.5.2023 CS/- Digitally signed by :- CHANDAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad