Allahabad High Court
Nirankar Goswami vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 1 April, 2024
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:26811
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3529 of 2023
Appellant :- Nirankar Goswami
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Nijam Ahamad
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.
2. As per record, including No.CA-5 to the counter affidavit filed by the State, the service upon respondent no.2 is sufficient, however, no one appeared on behalf of respondent no.2 to oppose the present appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
4. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 01.12.2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar in Bail Application No.1636 of 2023, arising out of F.I.R/ Case Crime No.84 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 406, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(da), 3(1) (dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Jahangirganj, District- Ambedkar Nagar.
5. While assailing the impugned order, under appeal, dated 01.12.2023, whereby the application seeking bail preferred by the appellant was rejected by the trial court, it is stated that (i) The wife of the appellant, namely, Smt. Mewati was the recorded tenure holder of Gata No.00191 situated at Village- Madhbar, Pargana- Surhurpur, Tehsil- Jalalpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar, whose name was recorded in terms of PA-11 on account of the death of her mother, namely, Smt. Chandrawati, who died on 06.06.2016; (ii) Smt. Mewati, wife of appellant, executed the sale deed dated 26.06.2017 in favour of the informant/respondent no.2; (iii) Respondent no. 2, after huge delay of about 3-1/4 years, preferred an application under Section 156(3) of CrPC and based upon the allegation(s) therein, the concerned court directed the police official concerned to lodge an FIR against the appellant; (iv) The application under Section 156(3) CrPC was preferred on the basis of the fact that the nephew of Smt. Chandrawati, mother of Smt. Mewati/wife of appellant, raised their claim regarding the land in issue, based upon the registered Will dated 26.04.2012; (v) Smt. Mewati, during her life time instituted Regular Suit No.135 of 2019 for cancellation of Will dated 26.04.2012, which is pending consideration; and (vi) Rupees Ten Lakh and Fifty Thousand was accepted by Smt. Mewati, as indicated in the sale deed, annexed as Annexure No.5 to the affidavit filed in support of the application for bail, and in this view of matter, in fact, no offence has been committed by the appellant and to a civil dispute, criminal colour has been given, and as such, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others (2013) 11 SCC 673, prosecution should not continue.
6. It is also stated that the aforesaid facts and circumstances were not considered by the trial court in its true spirit while passing the impugned order dated 01.12.2023 and, accordingly, the appeal is liable to be allowed and appellant be released on bail.
7. Mr. Ravi Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail, however, he could not dispute the aforesaid aspect of the case, as also law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment referred above.
8. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State, gone through the impugned order, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents, including the recitals of sale deed dated 26.06.2017 and facts related to entry in revenue records in favour of Smt. Mewati, wife of the appellant, who executed the sale deed dated 26.06.2017, and also that Smt. Mewati filed a suit for cancellation of Will dated 26.04.2012 during her life time, and upon due consideration, it appears from the order dated 01.12.2023, challenged in the appeal, that all these facts of the case were not considered by the trial court while rejecting the bail application of the appellant vide impugned order dated 01.12.2023 and accordingly this Court is of the view that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed. Order dated 01.12.2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar in Bail Application No.1636 of 2023, arising out of F.I.R/ Case Crime No.84 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 406, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(da), 3(1) (dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Jahangirganj, District- Ambedkar Nagar, is hereby set aside.
9. Let appellant- Nirankar Goswami be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-
(i) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial.
(ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial.
(iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).
(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.
(v) The appellant 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.
(vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.
(vii) The appellant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.
(viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
10. In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law
11. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order.
Order Date :- 1.4.2024
(Manoj K.)
