Allahabad High Court
Sanjeev Pandey vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 August, 2023
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:167773
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9354 of 2023
Applicant :- Sanjeev Pandey
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Shukla,Mewa Lal Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Sri Kumar Vikrant, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no.2 today in the Court, the same is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Mewa Lal Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kumar Vikrant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as perused the material available on record.
3. This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.132 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B I.P.C., P.S.- Kachhwa, District- Mirzapur.
4. As per FIR, the applicant and co-accused Santosh Kumar Upadhyay after giving some intoxicating material to the husband of the informant got executed a sale deed in favour of the co-accused Dharmendra Singh without paying any money.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submitted that incident took place on 05.09.2022 where the FIR was lodged on 15.09.2022 without any explanation of delay. He submitted that the land in question (21 area 0.0420 hect. Village Bajaha, Taluka Majhwa, Pargana Kasiwar, Tehsil Sadar, District Mirzapur) has been executed in favour of co-accused Dharmendra Singh by way of registered sale deed on 05.09.2022 by the husband of the opposite party no.2. He submitted that applicant is neither seller nor the purchaser, he is only a marginal witness of the sale deed in question. He submitted that for cancellation of the sale deed, the opposite party no.2 has filed a civil suit (Original Suit No. 877 of 2022) before the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Mirzapur, which is still pending. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon paragraph no. 18 of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of R. Nagender Yadav vs The State Of Telangana reported in 2023 (123) ACC 276 SC, which reads as under:-
"18. We therefore allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and quash the criminal proceedings of Criminal Complaint No. 1029 of 2015. We clarify that this will not come in the way of instituting appropriate proceedings in future in case the Civil Court comes to the conclusion that the disputed sale deed dated 29.12.2010 is forged. We refrain ourselves from expressing any opinion as regards the genuineness or otherwise of the sale deed in question as this question is wide open before the Civil Court. The Civil Court shall decide the civil suit pending between the parties on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence that may be led by both the sides. It shall be open to the Civil Court to take the opinion of the hand writing expert as regards the signature of the complainant on the disputed sale deed."
6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that earlier, the applicant moved anticipatory bail applicant before the court below and the court below vide its order dated 07.10.2022 granted interim protection to the applicant till submission of charge sheet; thereafter, charge sheet submitted on 30.11.2022 and against the charge sheet, the applicant moved anticipatory bail applicant before the court below and the same was rejected by court below vide its order dated 31.07.2023, hence the present anticipatory bail application. The applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 41 of the affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant. He has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, he is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.
8. Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
9. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant- Sanjeev Pandey, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation.
(ii) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.
(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.
(vii) 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.
10. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
11. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands allowed.
Order Date :- 21.8.2023
Krishna*
