Allahabad High Court
Lal Bahadur Singh vs State Of Up And Another on 6 May, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:80515
Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3846 of 2024
Applicant :- Lal Bahadur Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Rituvendra Singh Nagvanshi,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Yashwant Singh
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. Heard Sri Rahul Sripat, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rituvendra Singh Nagvanshi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Yashwant Singh, learned counsel for the first Informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material available on record.
2. This is the second anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0164 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 109 & 120-B of IPC, Police Station- Gulriha, District- Gorakhpur, with a prayer to enlarge her on anticipatory bail. His first anticipatory bail application i.e. Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.2156 of 2024 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 28.03.2024 with a liberty to file a better application, as such, virtually, the instant application may be considered as his first anticipatory bail application as the earlier order was not on merits.
PROSEUCTION STORY:
3. As per prosecution story, the informant and her sisters had no surviving male members of the family, as such, they had inherited the property of their deceased parents. The applicant Lal Bahadur Singh in collusion with other members of the family had forged a will-deed of the deceased father of the informant and got the property mutated to their names.
RIVAL CONTENTIONS:
Arguments on behalf of the applicant:
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. It is further argued that at the time of forging of the said will-deed dated 01.12.1988, the village was under consolidation proceedings and the compromise was entered into between the parties. Much reliance has been placed on Annexure-5 to the affidavit filed along with anticipatory bail application whereby the informant Smt. Gulabi was a party of the proceedings and had filed a compromise therein. The Consolidation Officer had decided the matter in favour of the applicant and other family members vide order dated 29.08.1991 passed in Case Nos. 2233, 2234, 2235, 2236, 2237, 2238 u/s 9A(2) of Consolidation of Holdings Act.
5. It is further argued that the informant herein was aware of the said will-deed dated 29.08.1991, as such, raising of the issue belatedly in the year 2022 is an afterthought and cannot be believed. It is next argued that the subject matter herein was challenged before this Court in Writ B No. 46455 of 2017 and the proceedings have been stayed by this Court vide order dated 06.10.2017. Another writ petition has been filed by the applicant as Writ-B No. 2828 of 2019 and the proceedings vide order dated 17.02.2020 have also been stayed.
6. Learned Senior Counsel has also placed much reliance upon the judgement of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.1907 of 2023 (Kusum Devi and another Vs. State of U.P. and another) decided on 24.08.2023 and the relevant paragraph nos. 20 & 21 of the said judgement are extracted herein below:-
"20. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants has also placed reliance on the judgment of Vinod Kumar Sharma (supra), whereby it has been opined that the word 'regular bail' includes the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. The said argument hold good and it is very true that even if the order for regular bail is passed, the anticipatory bail can be taken up, but the said case law also do not apply to the present case as we have to see the case on his own merits and the said judgment of this Court passed in the case of Dr. Rajni Tripathi (supra) has been placed on the said judgment of Apex Court passed in the case of Vinod Kumar Sharma (supra). Thus, they do not apply to the present case.
21. The judgment of this Court passed in Udit Arya (supra) also does not apply to the present case as in that case of dowry death, the cause of death was chronic illness and she had died in her parental house. Only the order under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued that too a few days before filing of the anticipatory bail application. The proceedings were not complete. No case under Section 304-B I.P.C. was made out, as such an exception was drawn. In the present case, the proclamation under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. was completed on 18.01.2023 itself and a period of more than six months have passed and herein, the deceased has committed suicide within the precincts of the house of the applicants, as such this case law also does not hold good to the present case and the exception cannot be drawn here. The applicants are named in the FIR."
7. Learned Senior Counsel has next stated that the instant case is not hit by the judgement of this Court passed in Shivam Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in AIROnline 2021 All 484, as the applicant has every right to apply for bail after filing of charge-sheet as has been opined by a coordinate Bench of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.3107 of 2023 (Dr. Kartikeya Sharma and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another) decided on 09.05.2023.
8. It is further argued that in petition U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.44172 of 2023, the dismissal order has not been passed on merits and it was stated therein that the applicant has got a right of discharge before the trial court and he is free to make submissions by means of said discharge application before the trial court, as such, the said petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed vide order dated 17.01.2024.
Arguments on behalf of learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State:
9. The anticipatory bail application has been vehemently opposed on the ground that the Investigating Officer after a thorough investigation has found that the applicant and other co-accused persons had forged the said will-deed by manipulating the year mentioned as 1987 to 1988. It is further argued that non-bailable warrants have been issued against the applicant on 04.04.2024. The discharge application filed by the applicant has been dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 30.03.2024. The property of the informant lies in seven different villages which is about 80 bighas, as such, the said forgery has been committed at all the places. The reference of consolidation proceedings have been made regarding one village only.
10. It is also argued that the instant case is barred by the judgement of this Court passed in Shivam (supra) wherein it has been categorically stated that after completion of investigation, the final report (charge-sheet) has been filed and the accused challenged the same in the petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and failed in it, as such, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail.
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the judgement of this Court passed in Shivam (supra), I do not find it a fit case to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. The arguments tendered at bar pertain to regular bail application and cannot be agitated u/s 438 Cr.P.C.
12. In view of the above, the present anticipatory bail application is rejected.
Order Date:- 6.5.2024
Siddhant
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
