High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 75 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4731 of 2022 Applicant :- Mukesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh Bais,Pankaj Bharti Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jitendra Kumar Shishodia Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. Heard Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pankaj Bharti, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jitendra Kumar Shishodia, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No. 1439 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, P.S. Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail. The complainant/opposite party no.2 has filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against applicant and co-accused persons alleging that Tobacco Workers Co-operative Housing Society Ltd has allotted 26 plots for shops to its members and one of the shop, i.e. shop no. 12 was allotted to Kishan Lal and that the sale-deed of that shop was executed on 27.11.1984 by the said society in favour of Kishan Lal, who is uncle of the complainant. Said Kishan Lal has executed a Will in favour of applicant in the year 2006 and that after death of Kishan Lal, complainant has filed a suit on 10.12.2015 in Civil Court and a declaratory decree was passed in his favour. It was alleged that despite above facts, co-accused Arvind showing himself as President and co-accused Nandlal, showing as Secretary have executed a lease deed of said shop in favour of co-accused Harish Kumar for a period of ten years. The applicant was a witness on the said lease deed. It appears that said application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was registered as a complaint case and thereafter applicant and co-accused were summoned in that complaint.
Legal Reasoning
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. The applicant is only an attesting witness on the said lease deed and that the complaint was filed by the complainant making false and baseless allegations. It was submitted that in fact in the year 1984 the Managing Committee of said society has illegally executed the sale-deed of shop no. 12 in favour of Kishan Lal and that on a complaint filed by Smt. Vindeshwari Devi, said sale-deed was declared null and void by order dated 12.02.1984, passed by the Arbitrator and no appeal was filed against that order. The complainant/opposite party no.2 has filed the above referred civil suit with mala fide intention and in fact it was collusive suit, wherein applicant was not a party and that a decree of civil court was obtained by the complainant in that collusive suit. It is further submitted that against the summoning order, co- accused persons have filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., wherein by order dated 27.01.2021 this Court has directed that no coercive action shall be taken against them in the complaint case. Earlier the applicant has filed revision against summoning order, which was dismissed. Against the order of revisional court, a petition under article 227 of the constitution of India was filed, however, it was also dismissed by this Court. Referring to the facts of the matter, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the dispute in question is purely civil in nature and that applicant was merely shown as attesting witness on the lease-deed and that no offence is made out against the applicant. The applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will obey all conditions of bail. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the application for anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the shop in question was allotted to the uncle of complainant, who has executed a Will in favour of applicant and that a declaratory decree was passed in favour of complainant by the civil court, but the accused persons including applicant have illegally executed the lease deed in favour of co-accused Harish Kumar by preparing forged documents. It was submitted that applicant is not merely an attesting witness on the lease deed but he was associated with the said society and he has actively participated in the misdeeds committed on behalf of said society. The summoning order has already been upheld by the Revisional Court and that applicant has challenged the said orders before this Court under article 227 of the Constitution of India and that petition was also dismissed. Learned counsel submitted that in fact the accused persons have committed various gross irregularities in order to grab the properties of members of society. Referring to enquiry conducted by Uttar Pradesh Aawas Vikas, it is submitted that the accused persons have sold the property of several members of the society illegally and that the accused persons were found guilty in the inquiry and that by order dated 07.05.2014, the Additional Housing Commissioner has directed to remove the accused persons and other Office bearers of the society from their posts. Learned counsel submitted that applicant and co- accused persons have illegally transferred several properties, which were lawfully allotted to the members of the society. It is submitted that in view of the facts of the matter and gravity of offence, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration. In the instant case, 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 on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Mukesh in the aforesaid case crime, 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 the Station House Officer of the police station concerned/Court below concerned with the following conditions:- 1. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial. 2.The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. 3.The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. 4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. 5. 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 officer or tamper with the evidence. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law. Order Date :- 29.7.2022 A. Tripathi Digitally signed by AKHILESH TRIPATHI Date: 2022.08.04 10:30:12 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad