Allahabad High Court
Jagram Singh vs State Of U.P. on 28 August, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:174150
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12231 of 2022
Applicant :- Jagram Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kamal Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Sengar
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the informant is not present.
2. Heard Sri Kamal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nitesh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Criminal Case No.2117 of 2018 (State vs. Jagram Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No.900 of 2017, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. at Police Station- Kotwali Orai, District- Jalaun with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have got executed a sale deed in his name from the owner of the property by impersonation.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant is a bona fide purchaser and he himself has been duped of his hard earned money. The criminal history of five cases assigned to the applicant has been explained in paragraph 30 of the affidavit filed with the anticipatory bail application. The present case is counterblast to the FIR instituted by the applicant as the complainant with the help of other persons had illegally taken possession of the said property. Learned counsel has further stated that the son of the person executing the sale deed has filed an affidavit that his father himself had executed the sale deed in person and the said sale deed has not been executed by impersonation. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
7. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Jagram Singh be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i). that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii). that 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 or tamper with the evidence;
(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(vi). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
9. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.
Order Date :- 28.8.2023/ Vikas
[Krishan Pahal, J.]
