High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51188 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11552 of 2025 Applicant :- Rajkaran Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J. 1. Instant application filed on behalf of applicant Rajkaran under Section 483 of B.N.S.S seeking regular bail in Case Crime No. 200 of 2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C., Police Station Loni Border, District Ghaziabad.
Legal Reasoning
2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that as per the F.I.R., the alleged incident occurred in the year 2021 and the allegation in the first information report against the applicant is merely guarantor in the loan agreement between the informant and co-accused i.e. Vimal who is the son of the applicant. It is further submitted that applicant was not aware about anything as alleged in the F.I.R. He is also not involved in any commission of offence for forging any document or misrepresenting to the informant. It is further submitted that applicant is innocent person aged around 65 years as mentioned in para-17 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application. It is also submitted that Investigating Agency after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet before the Court concerned. He is languishing in jail since 19.12.2024 i.e. more than about four months. There are no previous criminal history of the present applicant. Learned counsel further submitted that in the statement of the informant namely Akash Bansal recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. he has stated that co-accused Vimal has mortgaged house in question i.e. House No. A-1/10 of Krishna Bihar, Loni Border, Ghaziabad for taking loan of Rs. 40 Lakhs. It is further submitted that out of said loan amount, Rs. 15 lakhs has already been paid towards installments.
Legal Reasoning
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant submitted that main allegation against the accused persons are that the documents of the mortgaged property was forged. Main allegation is that after mortgaged to the concerned company who has given loan to the co-accused Vimal, another sale deed was prepared by the co- accused Vimal. It is vehemently submitted that this fact was not known to the present applicant. Learned counsel further submitted that merely reading of the first information report, it is crystal clear that allegations which were levelled against the accused persons are of the civil nature and there are no criminal intent to commit any offence by the present applicant. 4. Taking into consideration to the aforesaid facts, it is prayed on behalf of applicant that he may be released on bail in the aforesaid crime. It is further undertaken that applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions as imposed by this Court. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of State who has accepted notice in advance vehemently opposed the instant bail application and submitted that applicant was well aware about all the allegations levelled against him in the F.I.R. and also submitted that after completion of the investigation, the police has filed the charge sheet as there are sufficient material found against him. He further submitted that co-accused who has entered in the loan agreement and took loan of Rs.40 lakhs is son of the present applicant, therefore, there is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the applicant that he was not aware about the facts as alleged that fresh sale deed was prepared after mortgaging the property with the company for taking loan of Rs. 40 lakhs. Very serious offence has been committed by the applicant and he does not deserve for any leniency by this Court to release him on bail but it is fairly conceded by learned A.G.A. as per the instructions received by the Investigating Agency that there are no previous criminal history against the applicant and he is languishing in jail since 19.12.2024. 6. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State in advance notice and perused the material on record. 7. It is an admitted fact that applicant is father of co-accused and merely guarantor on the loan agreement. Whatever allegations for making another sale deed after mortgaging the property to the co- accused Vimal was against Vimal and not against the applicant. The mere allegation against the applicant is that he may be aware about such conduct but there are no sufficient material against the petitioner to establish that whether he was also conspirator on such conduct for preparing fresh sale deed of the mortgaged property. It is also admitted facts that there are no previous criminal history against the applicant. He is permanent residents of Ghaziabad and having deep roots in the society and is 65 years of old person. 8. Taking into consideration all entirety of the matter as discussed above, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. The bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant- Rajkaran, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1 lakh and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. 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. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 AKT (Chandra Dhari Singh, J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad