Laxmi Kant v. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No
Case Details
Kant vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 305 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. & Section 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Mishrikh, District- Sitapur. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is an innocent person and he has falsely been implicated in the case. He further submits that Ankit Adim, the co-accused is also the marginal witness in the sale deed in question. He further submits that the appellant is not the resident of Mishrikh but on that date he went to Mishrikh where he met Ankit Adim, on whose asking the appellant became a witness in the sale deed in question. The appellant had no knowledge about the fraud in regard to which the F.I.R. has been lodged. He also submits that the co-accused Ankit Adim, who is also marginal witness has been enlarged on bail by this Court by means of order dated 17.02.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 411 of 2025 ( Ankit Adim Vs. State of U.P. and another). He further submits that co-accused i.e. purchaser Manish Kumar Maurya challenged the FIR in which his arrest was stayed by means of order dated 22.10.2024 and on the same day he was arrested. Therefore, he moved regular bail application and in the regular bail, he has been enlarged on bail by means of order dated 17.02.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 221 of 2025 ( Manish Kumar Maurya Vs. State of U.P. and another) . It has further been submitted that Manish Kumar Maurya has filed a suit for cancellation of the sale-deed on the ground that some imposter has executed the sale-deed in place of respondent no.3. Next it has been submitted that Manish Kumar Maurya has challenged the proceedings after filing the charge-sheet before this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1213 of 2025 ( Manish Kumar Maurya Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others), in which this Court by means of order dated 24.04.2025 has passed an interim order that no coercive measure shall be taken against the appellant. He further submits that there is criminal history of two cases against the appellant, out of which one case is on account of matrimonial dispute, in which the investigation is going on and the appellant has not been summoned till date and in other case, an FIR has been lodged by Sri Manish Kumar Maurya in regard to sale-deed in question for sale of the property fraudulently by an imposter and in the same also investigation is going on and charge-sheet has not been filed. He further submits that in case the liberty of bail is granted, the appellant will not misuse the liberty granted by this Court and the appellant undertakes to cooperate in trial and will assist the trial court in early disposal of trial. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. However, he could not contradict the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and that the appellant is the only marginal witness and other marginal witness has also been enlarged on bail. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 has also opposed the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. However, he also could not contradict the aforesaid submissions and that the appellant was a marginal witness. However, he submits that by an imposter the sale-deed in question has been executed in place of respondent no.3 Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, it is apparent that the appellant is a marginal witness in the sale-deed, which has been executed by one imposter becoming as respondent no.3. The co- accused i.e. marginal witness and purchaser have been enlarged on bail by this Court and the appellant has explained the criminal history. Thus, this Court is of the view that the trial court has passed the impugned order without considering the same and ,therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and a case for bail is made out in favour of the appellant . The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The order dated
23.01.2025 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Raebareli is hereby set aside. Let the appellant- Laxmi Kant involved in the aforementioned case crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and undertaking as stated above and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) The appellant 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 appellant 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 269 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is issued and the applicants fail 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. (iv) The appellant 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 351 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023. (v) 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. . Order Date :- 15.5.2025 dk/ (Rajnish Kumar,J.) DEVENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Kant vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 305 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. & Section 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Mishrikh, District- Sitapur. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is an innocent person and he has falsely been implicated in the case. He further submits that Ankit Adim, the co-accused is also the marginal witness in the sale deed in question. He further submits that the appellant is not the resident of Mishrikh but on that date he went to Mishrikh where he met Ankit Adim, on whose asking the appellant became a witness in the sale deed in question. The appellant had no knowledge about the fraud in regard to which the F.I.R. has been lodged. He also submits that the co-accused Ankit Adim, who is also marginal witness has been enlarged on bail by this Court by means of order dated 17.02.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 411 of 2025 ( Ankit Adim Vs. State of U.P. and another). He further submits that co-accused i.e. purchaser Manish Kumar Maurya challenged the FIR in which his arrest was stayed by means of order dated 22.10.2024 and on the same day he was arrested. Therefore, he moved regular bail application and in the regular bail, he has been enlarged on bail by means of order dated 17.02.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 221 of 2025 ( Manish Kumar Maurya Vs. State of U.P. and another) . It has further been submitted that Manish Kumar Maurya has filed a suit for cancellation of the sale-deed on the ground that some imposter has executed the sale-deed in place of respondent no.3. Next it has been submitted that Manish Kumar Maurya has challenged the proceedings after filing the charge-sheet before this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1213 of 2025 ( Manish Kumar Maurya Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others), in which this Court by means of order dated 24.04.2025 has passed an interim order that no coercive measure shall be taken against the appellant. He further submits that there is criminal history of two cases against the appellant, out of which one case is on account of matrimonial dispute, in which the investigation is going on and the appellant has not been summoned till date and in other case, an FIR has been lodged by Sri Manish Kumar Maurya in regard to sale-deed in question for sale of the property fraudulently by an imposter and in the same also investigation is going on and charge-sheet has not been filed. He further submits that in case the liberty of bail is granted, the appellant will not misuse the liberty granted by this Court and the appellant undertakes to cooperate in trial and will assist the trial court in early disposal of trial. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. However, he could not contradict the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and that the appellant is the only marginal witness and other marginal witness has also been enlarged on bail. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 has also opposed the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. However, he also could not contradict the aforesaid submissions and that the appellant was a marginal witness. However, he submits that by an imposter the sale-deed in question has been executed in place of respondent no.3 Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, it is apparent that the appellant is a marginal witness in the sale-deed, which has been executed by one imposter becoming as respondent no.3. The co- accused i.e. marginal witness and purchaser have been enlarged on bail by this Court and the appellant has explained the criminal history. Thus, this Court is of the view that the trial court has passed the impugned order without considering the same and ,therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and a case for bail is made out in favour of the appellant . The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The order dated
23.01.2025 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Raebareli is hereby set aside. Let the appellant- Laxmi Kant involved in the aforementioned case crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and undertaking as stated above and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) The appellant 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 appellant 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 269 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is issued and the applicants fail 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. (iv) The appellant 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 351 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023. (v) 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. . Order Date :- 15.5.2025 dk/ (Rajnish Kumar,J.) DEVENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench