BA1/1371/2023
2023 Latest Caselaw 2197 UK

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                 AT NAINITAL
           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

                      10th AUGUST, 2023
        FIRST BAIL APPLICATION No. 1371 of 2023
Between:
Amit Kumar Singh.                                 .....Applicant

and

State of Uttarakhand.                          .....Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant     :    Mr. Arvind Vashisth,
                                   Senior Advocate assisted by
                                   Mr. Hemant Singh Mehra,
                                   Advocate holding brief of
                                   Mr. Vivek Pathak, Advocate.


Counsel for the                :     Mr. S.T Bhardwaj,
Respondent                           Deputy Advocate General.

Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.

Present Application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with the Case Crime No.322 of 2022, registered at police station Raipur, District Dehradun. Applicant is in judicial custody under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Prosecution's case is that one Sikandar Singh was an employee of PBIL Apex Construction Company. The said Company was an associate company of PACL and PGF Company. The properties-in-question were purchased by the PACL and PGF Company in the name of Sikandar Singh. Power of Attorney was never executed by Sikandar Singh to any person to sell the Company's land. The present applicant and co-accused Ankit Verma and Vijay Kumar have illegally sold the lands of the said companies

through a fake and forged registered Power of Attorney dated 23.04.2019. After enquiry, the First Information Report was lodged by the informant Abul Kalam, Inspector, Special Task Force on 04.08.2022. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed.

3. Mr. Arvind Vashisth, learned Senior Advocate, contended that the sold properties were recorded in the name of Sikandar Singh. The prosecution's claim that the said properties belonged to the said Company is false, incorrect and baseless. Applicant has a registered Power of Attorney, executed in his favour. Till date, the said Power of Attorney has not been cancelled or indicated in any Civil Court.

4. Mr. Arvind Vashisth, learned Senior Advocate, further contended that the registered Power of Attorney dated 23.04.2019 is a registered document and there is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed and a registered document, prima facie would be valid in law. In support of the said contention, Mr. Arvind Vashisth, learned Senior Advocate, has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, passed in "Prem Singh and Others vs. Birbal and Others" (2006) 5 SCC 353.

5. Mr. Arvind Vashisth, learned Senior Advocate, submits that the applicant has no criminal history and he is not a previous convict. He is in custody since 18.03.2023. Charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. Applicant is a permanent resident of District Dehradun, therefore, there is no chance of his absconding.

6. On the other hand, Mr. S.T. Bhardwaj, learned Deputy Advocate General, has opposed the Bail Application. He has submitted that the properties of PACL and PGF Companies have been sold by the applicant through a forged Power of Attorney. However, he has conceded that the said properties were recorded in the name of Sikandar Singh, and, the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory has not been received regarding the said forged document.

7. Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused.

8. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

9. The Bail Application is allowed.

10. Let the applicant- Amit Kumar Singh be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :-

i) Applicant shall attend the trial court regularly and he will not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

ii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case.

iii) Applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Trial Court.

11. It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, Prosecution will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.

___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

Dated: 10th August, 2023 Neha