Allahabad High Court
Sonu Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home ... on 2 March, 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. - 234 of 2023
Applicant :- Sonu Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Kumar Vishwakarma,Avneesh Kumar Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
The applicant has moved the present application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying for grant of anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.102 of 2022 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 120-B, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Bijnor, District Lucknow.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Vide order dated 1.2.2023, the applicant was granted interim protection by this Court. Gist of the issue involved in the present matter is given in the said order, which is extracted below :
"Supplementary Affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No.102 of 2022 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 120-B, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Bijnor, District Lucknow.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
As per the allegation in the First Information Report it is alleged that on 15.3.2022 the accused persons in collusion with each other induced him for registry of his aadha biswa aabadi land, cheating the informant got executed the sale deed of his valuable land Gata Number 1330/0.434 hectares situated at Village Jaitikheda, Police Station Mohanlalaganj, District Lucknow in favour of the applicant accused. It is also alleged that although he makes his signature, however, in haste they got endorsed his thumb-impression. It is further alleged that the sale deed has been executed by showing only Rs.50,000 through RTGS and Rs. 950000/- alleged to be paid in advance has never been paid to him.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the First Information Report it is admitted case of the prosecution that sale deed has been executed by the informant. At the best can be a case of lesser payment of the consideration amount for which the suit for cancellation of sale deed is the appropriate remedy. The suit has already been filed by the informant, which is on record as Annexure-3 to the application. In paragraph 7 of the suit it has been mentioned that he executed the sale deed. The offence is of 15.3.2022, however, the F.I.R. has been lodged on 8.7.2022 after four months without any explanation of delay which itself shows that purely civil dispute has been converted in the criminal case. The applicant has no criminal history.
Issue notice to respondent No. 2 returnable at an early date.
Learned Addl. Government Advocate prays for and is allowed fifteen days' time to file counter affidavit.
List on 02.03.2023.
On due consideration to the argument advanced; perusal of the record; and the fact that civil suit for cancellation of sale deed has been filed by the informant and investigation is going on; 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.
Till the next date of listing, 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.
The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer /I.O./ S.H.O. concerned call (s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. "
It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the applicant has not misused the interim protection granted by this court. Learned counsel further undertakes on behalf of the applicant that the applicant shall further cooperate in the investigation.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer made by the applicant's counsel, however, he does not dispute the aforesaid fact.
Without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall further cooperate in the investigation, the fact that the civil suit has also been filed by the informant for cancellation of sale deed, and gravity of offence, I am of the opinion that in the event of arrest, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in this case in the light of judgment of Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, subject to his cooperation in the investigation.
In view of the above as also keeping in view of the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC OnLine 98, the order above extracted is affirmed. Till filing of the police report, the applicant shall continue to remain on anticipatory bail on the same bail bonds as directed by this Court vide order extracted above.
The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witnesses. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer /I.O./ S.H.O. concerned call (s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.
In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this order.
In view of the aforesaid, the anticipatory bail application is allowed.
Order Date :- 2.3.2023
kkb/
