High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39579 of 2021
Legal Reasoning
Applicant :- Surendra Singh Saini Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- A.K. Mishra,Mayank Yadav,Prakash Chandra Srivastava,Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. Heard Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant- Surendra Singh Saini, with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Crime No. 75 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467 and 471 I.P.C., Police Station-Civil Line, District-Meerut, during the pendency of trial. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present first information report has been lodged by Rajneesh Gupta against the applicant with respect to the forgery and fraud played by him while executing two sale-deeds in favour of the son of the informant, namely, Siddhartha Gupta, which has resulted in irreparable loss to the informant. The present first information report has been lodged after inordinate delay of four months without submitting proper explanation for the same. He further submits that the first sale-deed was executed by the applicant with respect to a residential plot on 2nd February, 2019 in favour of son of the informant, namely, Siddhartha Gupta, pursuant to which certain cheques were issued for payment of consideration. The second sale-deed with respect to an agriculture plot was also executed by the applicant on 25th September, 2020 in favour of Siddhartha Gupta. Since in respect of the second sale-deed dated 25th September, 2020 payment was not given to the applicant by the informant in toto, he filed civil suit on 23rd October, 2020 for cancellation of the sale-deed dated 25th September, 2020. In the said civil suit, the informant filed written statement on 2nd January, 2021. Thereafter the applicant has also first information report against the son of the informant, namely, Siddhartha Gupta on 29th January, 2021 which has been registered as Case Crime No.0024 of 2021 under Sections 420, 406, 504 and 506 I.P.C. with respect to the forgery in non-payment of consideration amount qua the second sale-deed dated 25th September, 2020 executed by him in favour of Siddhartha Gupta. Till filing of the written submission on 2nd January, 2021, the informant or his son did not have any grudge with respect to any of the sale-deed executed by him nor with respect to the allegations as detailed in the present first information report. However, coming to know about the first information report lodged by the applicant against the son of the informant on 29th January, 2021, the present first information report has been lodged on 18th March, 2021 in order to exert pressure upon the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in order to save himself and his son's skin from the first information report lodged by the applicant, the present first information report has been lodged. The civil litigation with respect to the property in question is already pending between the parties, therefore, it cannot be said that the allegations as alleged in the present first information report are made out against the applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 18th June, 2021. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but he could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant. The Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID-19 Virus in prisons before the Apex Court). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering the bail applications on behalf of the accused persons. Considering the nature of the offence, provision for initiation of cases and release the accused, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Versus State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 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. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case. Order Date :- 11.1.2022 Sushil/- (Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)