High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51763 of 2021 Applicant :- Hariom Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. Order on Exemption Application The application seeking exemption from filing certified copies of the F.I.R. dated 01.04.2018 is allowed. The defects stands cured.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Sri Mohan Kant Bahgel, Advocate (AOR No. A/M0409/2018) holding brief of Sri Sunil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned AGA for the State. This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved for seeking bail in Case Crime No. 363 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 34, 120-B I.P.C. registered at Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Etah. The bail application of the applicant has been rejected by the court below, on 07.04.2021. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the FIR has been lodged by one Stm. Archana Devi before Police Station Kotwali, Etah being FIR No. 0363 of 2018 on 01.04.2018 at 09:40 hours in abovenoted sections relatable to the commission of the offence dated 09.01.2018 with the allegation that the complainant is 28 years of age and wife of Mukesh resident of village Navipura and she had executed a proceeding purported u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for lodging of the FIR pursuant thereto FIR has been lodged with an allegation that the complainant had purchased a land being 20x30 fit from the applicant being Hariom on 26.05.2017 by virtue of registered sale deed however, despite the fact that the land on question was transferred by the registered agreement in favour of the complainant by the applicant and further, he on 17.06.2017 executed a registered sale deed in favour of his wife, Smt. Nirmala Devi, the co-accused. Further the allegation has been sought to be leveled that the applicant has committed forgery and despite the fact that there is already exist a sale deed and no subsequent sale deed could have been executed and when certain construction were sought to be raised by the complainant over the plot of the land then the applicant along with other co-accused attacked upon the complainant side and threatened and extended injuries to them. Learned counsel of the applicant has drawn the attention of the court towards paragraph no. 9, 10, 11 & 12 of the bail application and further page no. 30 so as to contend that in the revenue record the said piece of the land is recorded in the name of father and mother and other relatives of the applicant however, the land which is being sought to be transferred is not the same piece of land which is being transferred in favour of the complainant. He further argued that there is a serious dispute with regard to the demarcation as it is on account of the mistake of the sale deed writer wherein the chauhaddi was wrongly prepared. He further argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case in question. He next argued that the present dispute is pure civil dispute and in case a sale deed has been illegally and wrongly executed then the same is either void or voidable at the instance of the party who seeks to get declaration in that regard. He further argued that even otherwise appropriate course open for the complainant for cancellation of sale deed and collateral proceeding could not have been initiated in which it is being sought to be proceeded with. He further drawn the attention of the court towards paragraph no. 17 of the bail application so as to contend that the applicant does not possess any criminal history. He lastly argued that the applicant is languishing in jail since 10.09.2020. Countering the said submission learned AGA for the State has opposed the bail while arguing that the applicant has committed the offence as the applicant is fully conversant with the fact that the land in question have been sold to the complainant that there was no occasion to have got the land transfer to his wife's name however, he could not dispute the fact that the applicant does not possess any criminal history. Considering the submission so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, on the question of bail, prima facie this Court finds that this is a fit case for grant of bail as the applicant is in jail since 10.09.2020 and he does not possess any criminal history and looking into the nature of the acquisition, the evidence collected by the I.O. in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of the punishment in the case of conviction, complicity of accused and all attending circumstances. Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons. In the light of the aforenoted discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Hariom involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :- (i). The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial. (ii). The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment. (iii). The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. (iv). 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (v). In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. (vi). Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. Taking into consideration that Covid-19 is continuing and due to which certified copy would not be possible to be obtained by the applicant, therefore, if a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court and self attested by the counsel for the applicant is placed before the Court, the same would be entertained. Order Date :- 4.3.2022 Nisha Digitally signed by NISHA KUMARI Date: 2022.03.08 10:14:11 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad