Allahabad High Court
Kanchhidmal And Another vs State Of U.P. on 27 January, 2021
Bench: Ali Zamin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47844 of 2020
Applicant :- Kanchhidmal And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Nand Kishor Mishra,Shashi Kant Sharma,Shilpa Ahuja,Yogendra Singh Bohra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shyam Babu Vaish
Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.
Sri Nand Kishor Mishra, Advocate has filed Rejoinder Affidavit in the Court, which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Nand Kishor Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri S.B. Vaish, learned counsel for informant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to enlarge them on bail in Case Crime No. 764 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 191, 193, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Sikandarabad, District Bulandshahr.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that as per FIR version applicants cheated, defrauded and perpetuated the false documents in order to grab their legally entitled properties and they also deliberately cheated the District Court Bulandshahar by filing false evidence just to get the properties. He further submits that the applicants had filed Suit No. 215 of 1990 (Kanchhid and others Vs. Rajwati and others) in which a compromise was entered between the parties with the condition that applicants will pay Rs.4,50,000/- to the defendant and applicants paid the said amount through 9 demand draft and the same has been accepted by the IIIrd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bulandshahar vide order dated 30.4.1996 and the suit was decreed by the Court on Ist May, 1996 and in para 7 of the judgment the Suit No. 72 of 1995 filed by Seema and her sister Kusum against the applicant was dismissed by the same judgment. After the decree of the suit no action was taken by the opposite parties. He further submits that it is not in dispute that Kusum, Seema and Suman are heirs of the Ganeshi Lal. He submits that after 24 years of passing of the decree in the suit this FIR has been lodged. He further submits that on 18.8.2020 Ankur son of the present informant lodged an FIR under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C. against applicants and others. The applicants filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.9450 of 2020 before this Court against the said FIR lodged by the Ankur son of informant in which arrest was stayed by this Court vide order dated 21.9.2020. He further submits that the sister of first informant namely Suman Arya has moved an application along with affidavit on 27.11.2020 in Case Crime No.764 of 2020 before the District & Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar, she stated that her father Ganeshi Lal executed will deed in favour of applicants and not in favour of Ankur. It is also submitted that applicant no.1 filed Suit No.288 of 2012 before the IInd Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bulandshahar, in which Court called forensic report of will deed prepared by Ankur and the signature on the will deed was found fabricated and fictitious. He further submits that Ankur son of first informant did not succeed in the Court he lodged an FIR in which arrest was stayed by this Court as mentioned above. On the same facts the present FIR has been lodged by the mother of Ankur. He further submits that there is no possibility of the applicants of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and, in case, the applicants are enlarged on bail, the applicants shall not misuse the liberty of bail. It is next contended that there is no criminal history of the applicants and they are languishing in jail since 21.10.2020.
Learned counsel for informant submits that in Suit No.288 of 2012 (Kanchhidmal Vs. Ankur Kumar) applicants namely, Kanchhidmal and Kedarnath have moved an affidavit with averments that in Suit No.215 of 1990 (Kanchhidmal and Another Vs. Smt. Rajwati and Another) before the IIIrd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bulandshahar, judgment and decree passed on a forged and fabricated compromise which is not based on legal and true facts and expert opinion on will deed of Kanchhidmal has also been found that signature is not genuine. Thus defense raised by the applicants is demolished and they are not entitled for bail.
Learned A.G.A. also submits that as per the DCRB report the applicants have one criminal history.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also perusing the material on record, the suit was decreed on 30.4.1996 on the basis of compromise, thereafter no proceeding against decree has been taken by the informant as well as her son Ankur, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the applicants are entitled for bail, let the applicants- Kanchhidmal and Kedar Nath involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions :-
(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they will not tamper with the evidence and will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and will cooperate with the trial. The applicants 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. 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 them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicants 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 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are 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 them in accordance with law.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 27.1.2021
Md Faisal
