Allahabad High Court
Mastram vs State Of U.P.And Another on 2 August, 2021
Bench: Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1618 of 2021
Appellant :- Mastram
Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Akhilesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ravindra Prakash Srivastava
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 2 is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant Mastram with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 19.02.2021, passed by Exclusive Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Basti, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 195 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No. 905 of 2017, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 120B I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r)(s) SC/ST Act, Police Station Harraiya, District Basti.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the accused-appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Submission is that the informant has filed suit for cancellation of gift deed and thereafter after two years from the date of filing of the suit, he has lodged the first information report alleging that the said deed is forged. Further submission is that the fact that the first information report has been lodged after filing of a civil suit and the civil dispute is pending between both the sides in respect of the same property about which the alleged forgery is said to have committed. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned Special Judge and he has rejected the bail application of the appellant The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the accused-appellant has no criminal history and the court below has illegally rejected the bail application of the appellant. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the accused-appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 have vehemently opposed the the prayer and have submitted that prior to lodging of the first information report two years before civil suit was filed from the side of informant in order to cancel the gift deed. It has been further submitted that the sale deed was executed in favour of the informant by the father of the appellant and thereafter the said gift deed has been said to have been obtained on fake stamps and on the basis of that forged gift deed, the property which was already sold in favour of the informant, the same has been sold by the appellant in favour of others. Further submission is that the learned Special Judge has considered all the aspects of the matter and has rightly rejected the bail application of the appellant. Therefore, the appeal has got no force and is liable to be dismissed.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also the fact that the first information report has been lodged two years after the filing of the civil suit by the informant side and this appears to be valid reason on the basis of which, the bail application should have been allowed. The civil dispute has been converted into the criminal dispute after two years and in pursuance of the first information report, the appellant has been arrested and sent to jail. Therefore, I find that the learned court below has erred in rejected the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 19.02.2021, passed by Exclusive Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Basti is hereby set aside.
Let the appellant namely Mastram involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The appellant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that appellant is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The appellant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The appellant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the appellant to prison.
However, the trial court is expected to expedite the disposal of the trial in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 2.8.2021
sailesh
