Allahabad High Court
Shyam Singh vs State Of U.P. on 9 May, 2022
Bench: Vikas Kunvar Srivastav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 90
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15891 of 2022
Applicant :- Shyam Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Pandey,Rajendra Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav,J.
01. The case is called out.
02. Heard learned counsel for the applicant Sri Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocate and learned A.G.A. for the State Sri S. S. Sachan, Advocate and perused the record.
03. The present bail application is filed on behalf of the accused-applicant involved in Case Crime No.238 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S.Kayamganj, District Farrukhabad.
04. The occasion of present bail application arisen on rejection of bail plea of applicant by learned court of Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad vide order dated 31.03.2022.
05. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that matter is of execution of forged sale deed by putting imposter in place of real and recorded owner of the land. The present applicant is neither vendor nor vendee but he is simply marginal witness to the sale deed. He further submitted that civil suit instituted by the informant of the case for cancellation of the sale deed is pending. The purchaser Ranveer Singh has submitted written statement consenting for cancellation of the sale deed.
06. He further informed the Court that another marginal witness Ankit Kumar has been granted anticipatory bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No.19192 of 2021 vide order dated 07.12.2021. He next submitted that accused applicant is common man and not of criminal nature and even no previous complaint against him is pending. Therefore, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is in jail since 23.02.2022.
07. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State submitted that he has received instructions to oppose the plea and submitted that complicity of the applicant in the offence as marginal witness of the alleged sale deed is very serious because he is imposter and he has executed forged sale deed. Therefore, he cannot take plea of innocence in the matter. He further submitted that question of parity does not arise with the other accused persons as one of them is the purchaser who himself has given consent to get the sale deed cancelled on the ground that it is forged.
08. Learned A.G.A. has not argued about the criminal involvement of the applicant in any other case. He has also no material with him to show that the marginal witness willingly, knowingly and collusively has facilitated the execution of sale deed by managing lady to whom, he knew that she is not the real or recorded owner. It is to be decided on the basis of material on record during the course of trial.
09. This is also admitted by the parties that first informant is still in possession of the land in question for which the execution of sale deed has been done. Moreover, there is no implementation of sale deed by way of mutation in revenue records. There is no prima facie case against the applicant of gaining undue advantage by execution of such forged sale deed.
10. Keeping into mind the valuable right of personal liberty and the fundamental principle not to disbelieve a person to be innocent unless held guilty and if he is not arraigned with the charge of an offence for which the law has put on him a reverse burden of proving his innocence as, held in the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in [(2018) 3 SCC 22], I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the accused-applicant to enlarge him on bail for the reasons discussed hereinabove.
11. Let applicant (Shyam Singh) involved in Case Crime No.238 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S.Kayamganj, District Farrukhabad be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.1 lac by two different sureties of the like amount, the social and economic status of whom to be on the satisfaction and verification of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant 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 applicant 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 applicant misuse 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 applicant 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 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 :- 9.5.2022
Asha
