High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:150781 Court No. - 75 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16679 of 2023 Applicant :- Vijay Bahadur Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Indra Raj Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raghubir Singh A N D Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23112 of 2023 Applicant :- Dashrath Singh @ Nitu Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raghubir Singh Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Shri Raghubir Singh, learned counsel for the informant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. Present bail applications have been filed by the applicants seeking enlargment on bail in connection with FIR No.432 of 2022, under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 411 IPC, P.S. Etmadpur, District Agra. 3. The FIR in question was lodged alleging that the informant on 21.12.2022 at about 9 AM in the morning went for inspection on the property which belonged to the informant. On reaching there and getting information, the informant was revealed that his land situated at Gata No.00078 and other gata numbers as disclosed, ad-measuring 2.4770 Hectare were sold by impersonating. It was alleged that the name of the informant was Krishna Tomar, however, some other person by impersonating as Krishna Tomar executed the sald-deed alongwith his accomplice. The reason for slight delay in lodging the FIR was that the informant sister had died. The sale consideration for the sale-deed as executed by the impersonator was shown as Rs.3 Crore 40 Lakhs. 4. On the basis of the said FIR lodged, investigations were carried out and the accused named in the FIR and the other persons who were marginal witnesses or whose names were taken by the accused persons, were apprehended and money was recovered and the trial in respect of the said offences are going on. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants argues that the applicants were not named in the FIR and their names surfaced in the statement of the main accused and on the basis of the said statement of the co-accused as well as the alleged recovery of certain currency from the applicants, they have been apprehended and are in custody. 6. In respect of applicant namely Vijay Bahadur in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.16679 of 2023, it is alleged that from his residence, about Rs.9,50,000/- was allegedly recovered. His name also surfaced in the statement of the co-accused. It is argued by counsel for the applicant that the applicant had nothing to do with the execution of the sale-deed in question. He states that the applicant was neither named in the FIR nor is he a marginal witness or in any way connected with the execution of the deed in question. As regards the recovery, counsel for the applicant argues that the said money was planted by the police and the recovery is not in terms of the mandate of Section 100 Cr.P.C., as there are no independent witnesses to the search. In the light of the said, the argument is that the applicant is being falsely implicated with the offence in question. The criminal history of the applicant Vijay Bahadur has been disclosed in Para - 20 of the bail application wherein he is being prosecuted for two offences, both under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC being Case Crime No.93A/2015 & 493/2015; and the third offence is subsequent to the present case and is numbered as Case Crime No.340 of 2022, under Section 306, 120B IPC. It is also argued that the applicant is aged about 70 years. 7. In respect of applicant Dashrath Singh @ Nitu Yadav in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.23112 of 2023, learned counsel for the applicant argues that the applicant was not named in the FIR and his name also surfaced in the statements, which are not admissible in evidence. It is further argued by the counsel for the applicant that the alleged recovery of cash amounting to Rs.17 lakhs is also through a search memo, which is not in accordance with the mandate of Section 100 Cr.P.C., and does not belong to the applicant and was planted by the police authorities at the instance of the informant. The applicant has no criminal antecedent and thus, he should be enlarged on bail. 8. Learned counsel for the informant on the other hand argues that cheating of huge amount has been done and the sale-deed has been executed in respect of a land which was not owned by the persons executing the sale-deed; in fact, not only was the sale-deed executed by the impersonators in connivance with each other, a bank account was also opened in the name of the owner of the property by the impersonators by faking the documents. He has filed a counter affidavit in the other bail application arising out of the same offence wherein the statement of account of the impersonator of Krishna Tomar has been annexed, which indicates that money was transferred by the purchaser in the said account amounting to Rs.2 crore 40 lakhs and there are huge cash withdrawals from the said accounts. Supported by the said, learned counsel for the informant argues that the entire conspiracy was done at the instance of all the accused and the sale proceeds were distributed amongst themselves, which was demonstrated by the huge cash withdrawals. As regards the submission of counsel for the applicant that the recovery was not in the presence of independent witnesses, he argues that such huge money cannot be planted by the police and in any case, the same is subject to trial and cannot be adjudicated conclusively at this stage. In short, he tries to justify the recovery on the basis of the cash withdrawal from the account plus the name of the applicants being taken by the complainant and the co-accused. 9. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, from perusal of the allegations leveled in the FIR and the attending material collected, it is clear that some impersonator executed the sale- deed by impersonating Krishna Tomar, who is the actual owner of the property in question; not only was the sale-deed executed, the attending circumstances like opening of the bank account etc., demonstrate the large scale manner in which the fraud was practised and perpetrated by the accused named in the FIR. The recovery of such huge amounts from the applicants cannot be said to be mere coincidence which are primarily correlated with the huge cash withdrawal demonstrated from the statement of account. 10. Considering the gravity of the offence, I do not deem it appropriate to grant bail. As such, both the bail applications being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.16679 of 2023 & Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.23112 of 2023 are rejected. Order Date :- 27.7.2023 nishant Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad