Allahabad High Court
Shreeyansh Kanodia vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 3 February, 2023
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13177 of 2021
Applicant :- Shreeyansh Kanodia
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vaibhav Upadhyay,Sanju Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhishek Singh
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
The present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 86 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC at Police Station- Chinhat, District-Lucknow.
Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, Shri Akhand Kumar Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Shri Abhishek Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent as well as perused the record.
Gist of the controversy has been noticed by this Court while granting interim protection to the applicant vide order dated 17.11.2021, which is extracted below:-
"The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.86 of 2021 under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Chinhat, district Lucknow.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.
It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the applicant is a 21 years of age. He is a student and residing in Bangalore for pursuing his studies. He has nothing to do with the said land.
The co-accused Sandeep Kanodia has executed a gift deed in favour of Sathyam Kanodia regarding gata No.335-Sa. It is admitted cas between the parties that the co-accused Sandeep Kanodia is the owner of land in Gata No.335-SA and the complainant is the owner of land in gata No.333. The only dispute is that although the co-accused Sandeep Kanodia is owner of gata No.335-Sa, on the basis of alleged gift deed, Sathyam Kanodia is trying to encroach land in gata No.333 which belongs to the informant. It appears that the dispute is relating to demarcation of land in gata No.335-Sa. A civil suit is pending between the parties regarding the aforesaid gata numbers.
It is submitted that the co-accused Sandeep Kanodia and Sathyam Kanodia have been enlarged on bail by the lower court. The bail orders are annexed as Annexures 7 and 8 to the bail application.
Prima facie, it appears that the dispute between the parties is regarding the exact place where the gata No.335-Sa is situated. Such dispute cannot be adjudicated by the criminal court. The person who has executed the gift deed as well as the beneficiary both have been enlarged on bail. The applicant is only a witness to the gift deed.
The applicant has no criminal history.
Considering the above aspects of the matter and the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal versus State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98, 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.
Issue notice to respondents.
Notice to respondent No.1 shall be issued in terms of provisions of Section 438(1A) CrPC.
Let counter affidavit(s) be filed within fifteen days.
List on 9.12.2021.
Without expressing any opinion on ultimate merit of the case, this Court directs that in the event of arrest, the applicant Shreeyansh Kanodia shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.
The applicant is directed to cooperate with the investigation and he shall attend the investigation as and when required by the investigating officer. In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection.
Order Date :- 17.11.2021"
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as far as objection regarding maintainability of the application on the ground that notice under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued, the same is misconceived for two reasons. First, in the Rejoinder Affidavit he has filed the notice issued to the applicant which shows that it has been issued without application of mind. No time, place, etc. have been mentioned in the said notice it appears to have been issued on a proforma. Second, as per the admitted case of the prosecution that after the interim protection was granted to the applicant he appeared and got statement recorded under Section 161 before the Investigating Officer and also filed two sureties before the Investigating Officer.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer.
Considering the facts that the dispute appears to be civil dispute; the applicant has cooperated in the investigation; further undertakes to cooperate in the investigation, it would be expedient in the interest of justice that the liberty of the applicant may be protected in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 till filing of the police report.
In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. It is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) That the accused-applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by police authorities as and when required and will cooperate with the investigation.
(ii) That the accused-applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat and 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) That the accused-applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions or in case it is otherwise found for any other reason the bail is required to be canceled, it shall be open for the State or the appropriate authority to move application for cancellation of bail/vacation of this order in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 3.2.2023
Madhu
