Santosh Kumar Maurya @ Ujagir vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 20332 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:51685
 
Court No. - 16
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 395 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Maurya @ Ujagir
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sameer Singh,Ravi Singh,Sakshi Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Girish Kumar Pandey,Hema Singh,Saurabh Yadava
 

 
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 

1. Heard Sri Ravi Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajeev Kumar Verma, the learned AGA for the State, Sri Saurabh Yadava, learned counsel for the informant and perused the records.

2. On 17.02.2023, after hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. this Court had passed the following interim order -

"1. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by the applicant apprehending his arrest in F.I.R./Case Crime No.0142 of 2020, under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 354, 380, 376, 511, 377, 420, 467, 468, 494 I.P.C., Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.

2. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Girish Kumar Pandey, Advocate on behalf of the complainant is taken on record. His name shall be printed in the cause list when the case is next listed.

3. Heard Shri Ravi Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the respondent/State and learned counsel for the complainant.

4. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that complainant gave a written complaint at Police Station Gomti Nagar, Lucknow stating therein that her marriage was solemnized with Santosh Kumar Maurya on 13.03.2005. Her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law has assured that her husband has taken divorce from his first wife three years ago and there is a child aged about seven years from the first wedlock. The marriage of the complainant was successful till 2018. On 17.10.2018 and 25.02.2019, her husband got her properties fraudulently transferred in his name. The said deed was in English and as such, she got deceived. On saying of her husband she has also signed 20-30 blank papers and 20-30 stamp papers and now, she apprehends that the said papers have been used by her husband against her. On 27.02.2019 she was sent to Azamgarh. From where she was sent to her parental house. Where her husband Santosh Kumar Maurya, dewar Ashok Kumar Maurya, his mama Hariram Maurya, friend Rammilan Maurya and five-six other persons came to drop her. They passed obscene remarks at her and hurled abuses at her and behaved badly and threatened to kill her. They were armed with guns and the witness of entire episode is Subedar Maurya, who is cousin brother of her husband. She somehow, on 08 April managed to come back at house where her husband, sister-in-law Sheela, nandoi Kanhaiya, devrani Pooja, dewar Suresh etc. engaged in maarpeet and hurled abuses at her and tried to throw her away from the house. Her dewar Ashok came at her on the next date and she ran towards bathroom however, he grabbed her and and tried to rape her but she managed somehow to save herself. She was mentally and physically tortured by her in-laws. She called police at Dial 100 and she was saved after intervention of police. Apart from above persons, friend of her husband namely Ramratan Chaturvedi also did obscene acts with her in front of her husband. Jyoti Maurya, the daughter of sister of husband had stolen her two chains, ring and three earrings. She has also come to know that her husband had lied about his divorce with first wife. She has daughter out of her wedlock with Santosh Maurya but he had not mentioned their names in government records.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that First Information Report has been lodged after delay of more than one year without any explanation of the delay. By the impugned F.I.R., by making sweeping allegations, entire family of the applicant, total 13 in number, have been implicated. Even the minor children of the applicant have been implicated in the F.I.R. Although it is alleged in the F.I.R. that respondent no.2 is a legally wedded wife of the present applicant whereas the same is being denied by the applicant and it is submitted that the wife of the applicant Sunita Maurya has submitted an affidavit, which is on record as Annexure-2 to the Affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application. In fact, the father of respondent no.2, who was having relations with the ancestors of the applicant?s family, requested that her daughter may be permitted to reside at the premises of the applicant for the purpose of her education. Accordingly, the best education was provided by the applicant to respondent no.2 that too at district Basti. Thereafter the applicant was transferred to District Bareilly and therefore, he shifted his family to District Lucknow along with respondent no.2. In absence of the applicant, respondent no.2 kicked out the wife of the applicant Sunita Maurya from the residence and started harassing the applicant by exerting pressure to register immovable properties of the applicant in her name. She started impersonating herself as wife of the applicant. The applicant and his family members have been harassed at the hands of respondent no.2 for about a decade then she entered into relationship in the year 2018 with one Deepak Kumar. Since she was willing to live with Deepak Kumar therefore transferred two properties, which she procured while exerting pressure on the applicant through a registered gift deed duly executed in the office of Registrar on 17.10.2018 and 25.2.2019, which are on record as Annexure-4 to the Affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application.

6. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that a Regular Suit No.914 of 2019 was filed by the respondent no.2 for cancellation of gift deed and permanent injunction, which is pending. Memo of suit is on record as Annexure-5 to the Affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application. The applicant having left with no other option had filed a complaint case which was registered as Complaint Case No.2910 of 2019. As a counterblast to the above complaint filed by the applicant, through her brother namely Raushan Maurya lodged a false First Information Report against the applicant, which was registered as Case Crime No.982 of 2019 under Section 420, 406, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow. It is submitted that in the First Information Report the brother of respondent no.2 has nowhere stated that the applicant is his brother-in-law.

7. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 8075 of 2019 has been preferred before this Court by the applicant after the charge-sheet has been filed in the above case wherein interim order was passed in favour of the applicant. The order dated 21.11.2019 is also on record as Annexure-9 to the Affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application. While the applicant was working in the Finance department, Government of U.P. a complaint was submitted by the brother of respondent no.2 and on that complaint the applicant was placed under suspension, which order was challenged by filing a Writ Petition No.32575 (SS) of 2019, which was stayed by this Court, which is on record as Annexure No.10 to the Affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application. Prior to the lodging of the First Information Report regarding the same incident an application dated 9.4.2019 was given by the respondent no.2 wherein different version has been narrated contrary to the First Information Report. First Information Report dated 19.1.2020 was challenged by the applicant by filing Writ Petition No.4415 (MB) of 2020 wherein interim protection was given to the applicant. First Information Report was lodged by the brother of the applicant Ashok Kumar Maurya. Brother of the applicant lodged an First Information Report against respondent no.2, which was registered as Case Crime No.0017 of 2020 under Section 419, 420, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code regarding the forgery in Parivar Register by respondent no.2. As a counterblast, immediately an F.I.R. was lodged by respondent no. 2 against the present applicant at District Azamgarh which was registered as Case Crime No.65 of 2020 under Section 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471. Another First Information Report dated 4.3.2021 was lodged by respondent no.2 registered as Case Crime No.0018 of 2021 against the applicant and his family members under Section 147,323,352,354,420,427 and 504 I.P.C., Police Station Gomti Nagar. Against the F.I.R. dated 4.3.2021 the applicant approached this Court while filing Writ Petition No.882 (MB) of 2022 wherein interim protection was granted to the applicant. Two complaints were registered on IGRS portal by respondent no.2 dated 22.3.2022 and 23.3.2022 alleging therein abduction of minor daughter of the applicant. The Investigating Officer conducted preliminary investigation and recorded the statement of daughter of the applicant Saumya Maurya. As per her statement ?she is having fear from the opposite party no.2?. An application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. through her aunt was preferred by the Saumya Maurya against respondent no.2, which has been converted as Complaint Case No.6283 of 2021.

8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the sole purpose of these repeated First Information Reports at the instance of respondent no.2 is to usurp the properties of the applicant, which have been purchased by his hard earned money. No Dues Certificate issued by the State Bank of India is on record as Annexure-22 to the Affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application. Respondent no.2 while giving statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has made improvement from the version of the F.I.R. and in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she denied to undergo the medical examination. The medical report is on record as Annexure-27 to the Affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application. There are no injuries suffered by the respondent no.2.

9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no evidence in the entire case diary which may ascertain the marriage of the applicant with the respondent no.2, hence no case under Section 498A Indian Penal Code is made out.

10. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that Ankita Maurya, daughter of the applicant has also been implicated in this case which shows the mindset of the informant. Another co-accused Pooja Maurya on the date of incident i.e. 8.4.2019 was not present at the place of occurrence rather was in Hardoi giving her Master of Arts Examination. The admit card is on record as Annexure-36 to the Affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application. The dispute is only for the purpose of acquiring the immovable assets of the applicant. There is no corroborating evidence in support of the allegation in the First Information Report as well as in the prosecution case and the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be taken as gospel truth. In support of his submission learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the cases of Apex Court reported in Santosh @ Santosh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar; (2020) 3 SCC 443 and Rajoo and others vs. State of M.P. (Criminal Appeal Nos.1094-1098 of 2000).

11. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that throughout the investigation the applicant has cooperated in the investigation and has not misused the liberty granted by this Court. Entire allegation regarding the forgery of valuable security for the purpose of cheating as well as using as a genuine forged documents are missing in this case.

12. There is no concealment of fact of formal marriage as per own version of the First Information Report, therefore, no case under Section 495 Indian Penal Code is also made out.

13. The allegation regarding Section 377 Indian Penal Code is also misconceived as respondent no.2 has d02.03enied her medical examination.

14. The applicant has explained the criminal history of four cases in paragraph 80 of the Affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application.

15. Per contra learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer. They pray for and are granted fifteen days? time to file Objections/Counter Affidavit.

16. On due consideration to the fact that the applicant has explained the criminal history in paragraph 80 of the Affidavit; charge-sheet has been filed; the applicant has cooperated in the investigation; the applicant undertakes to cooperate in the trial and civil suit filed by respondent no.2 as well as various litigations/First Information Reports filed at the instance of the respondent no.2 or his brother against the applicant possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out and also considering the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1 and without entering into the merit of the case, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

17. Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant Santosh Kumar Maurya @ Ujagir shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

(1) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial and he will not influence the witnesses.

(2) The accused-applicant will remain present on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

(3) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court

(4) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

18. List on 24.3.2023"

3. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant annexing therewith a copy of the charge sheet which has been submitted on 11.03.2021. The Court has already taken cognizance of the case by means of an order dated 03.12.2022.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant informs that the applicant has already furnished bail bonds in compliance of the order dated 17.02.2023.

5. Although a counter affidavit has been filed, nothing has come to light which may persuade this Court to take a view, different from the view taken while passing the aforesaid order, nor the learned A.G.A. has pointed out violation of any of the conditions of interim anticipatory bail committed by the applicant.

6. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the interim order dated 17.02.2023 is hereby made absolute and the application is allowed in terms of the aforesaid order.

Order Date :- 3.8.2023

Pradeep/-