High Court · 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present appeal has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur in Bail Application No.02/2025 arising out of Case Crime No.305/2024 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Mishrit, District- Sitapur. ₹

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the appellant was cheated by one Monu Kumar, Village Pradhan and his associates by selling the property of case in question and on his instance, sale deed was executed by one person who was claiming himself as Sakatu, S/o recorded tenure holder of property of case in question. The appellant paid the sale consideration through cheque but the cheque was returned and the cash of amounting 5,00,000/- was taken by Monu and so called Sakatu. Thereafter, mutation application was filed, on which, the objection was raised by actual owner of the property and when this fact came into the notice of the appellant, he immediately lodged FIR bearing No.297 of 2024, under sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC at PS- Mishrit, District- Sitapur on 24.09.2024 against the so- called impostors, namely Sakatu, Ankit Adim, Laxmikant, Monu Kumar, Munshilal and Manoj. He further submits that when Monu Kumar came to know about the aforesaid FIR, he, on the basis of incorrect facts, lodged the FIR of case in question. He further submits that the appellant also filed cancellation of sale deed of property of case in question on the ground that some imposters have sold out the said property to him which is pending before the competent Court and notice in this regard has already been served on the recorded tenure holder. He further submits that the investigation in FIR No.297 of 2024 (supra) is not being conducted by the police while charge sheet has already been submitted in the present case.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant does not have any previous criminal antecedent and he is in jail since 25.12.2024. But all these facts were not considered by the trial court while passing the impugned order, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant entitled to be enlarged on bail.

5. Learned AGA as well as Learned counsel for the complainant opposes the prayer of appellant but they do not dispute this fact that when the objection was raised on the mutation application then immediately, FIR No.297 of 2024 (supra) was lodged by the appellant. They also concede the fact that investigation in FIR No.297 of 2024 (supra) is pending while charge sheet has already been submitted in the present case.

6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of appeal as well as other relevant documents; it is evident that FIR No.297 of 2024 (supra) was filed by the appellant when it came into his notice that he was cheated by one Monu and his associates. After which, present case was lodged. It is also evident that investigation in the FIR No.297 of 2024 (supra) is still pending while charge sheet in the present case has been submitted. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that learned trial court failed to consider the aforesaid aspects, hence, the aforesaid impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

7. Resultantly, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence, the present appeal has substance, and it is accordingly allowed, and the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur is hereby set aside.

8. Let the appellant- Manish Kumar Maurya involved in the aforementioned 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:- (i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will 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 appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their 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 appellant 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 appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant 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.

9. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid condition, it shall become the ground of cancellation of bail. Order Date :- 17.2.2025 V. Sinha VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present appeal has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur in Bail Application No.02/2025 arising out of Case Crime No.305/2024 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Mishrit, District- Sitapur. ₹

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the appellant was cheated by one Monu Kumar, Village Pradhan and his associates by selling the property of case in question and on his instance, sale deed was executed by one person who was claiming himself as Sakatu, S/o recorded tenure holder of property of case in question. The appellant paid the sale consideration through cheque but the cheque was returned and the cash of amounting 5,00,000/- was taken by Monu and so called Sakatu. Thereafter, mutation application was filed, on which, the objection was raised by actual owner of the property and when this fact came into the notice of the appellant, he immediately lodged FIR bearing No.297 of 2024, under sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC at PS- Mishrit, District- Sitapur on 24.09.2024 against the so- called impostors, namely Sakatu, Ankit Adim, Laxmikant, Monu Kumar, Munshilal and Manoj. He further submits that when Monu Kumar came to know about the aforesaid FIR, he, on the basis of incorrect facts, lodged the FIR of case in question. He further submits that the appellant also filed cancellation of sale deed of property of case in question on the ground that some imposters have sold out the said property to him which is pending before the competent Court and notice in this regard has already been served on the recorded tenure holder. He further submits that the investigation in FIR No.297 of 2024 (supra) is not being conducted by the police while charge sheet has already been submitted in the present case.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant does not have any previous criminal antecedent and he is in jail since 25.12.2024. But all these facts were not considered by the trial court while passing the impugned order, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant entitled to be enlarged on bail.

5. Learned AGA as well as Learned counsel for the complainant opposes the prayer of appellant but they do not dispute this fact that when the objection was raised on the mutation application then immediately, FIR No.297 of 2024 (supra) was lodged by the appellant. They also concede the fact that investigation in FIR No.297 of 2024 (supra) is pending while charge sheet has already been submitted in the present case.

6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of appeal as well as other relevant documents; it is evident that FIR No.297 of 2024 (supra) was filed by the appellant when it came into his notice that he was cheated by one Monu and his associates. After which, present case was lodged. It is also evident that investigation in the FIR No.297 of 2024 (supra) is still pending while charge sheet in the present case has been submitted. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that learned trial court failed to consider the aforesaid aspects, hence, the aforesaid impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

7. Resultantly, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence, the present appeal has substance, and it is accordingly allowed, and the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur is hereby set aside.

8. Let the appellant- Manish Kumar Maurya involved in the aforementioned 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:- (i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will 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 appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their 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 appellant 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 appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant 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.

9. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid condition, it shall become the ground of cancellation of bail. Order Date :- 17.2.2025 V. Sinha VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench