Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2339 (ALL)

Sangita Sharma v. State of U. P.

2016-07-06

HARSH KUMAR

body2016
JUDGMENT Harsh Kumar,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the first informant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated; that the applicant has not committed any cheating or forgery; that the entire prosecution story is false and incorrect; that it is wrong to say that the first informant made payment of Rs.40 lakhs to the applicant; that it is wrong to say that Mahadev Housing Project has been cancelled and sealed by Ghaziabad Development Authority; that in counter affidavit it has been stated that the applicant executed a notarized agreement for sale in favour of the first informant on 31.10.2012/ 4.11.2012; that the above alleged agreement for sale was not executed by applicant rather it is a forged and fictitious document in which there is a mention of payment of Rs.30 lakhs on a subsequent date 31.3.2013, which is impossible and same date of payment has been mentioned in F.I.R.; that the above agreement for sale is forged and fictitious and, in any case, the first informant, if wants may seek specific performance of contract of above agreement through Civil Court; that instead of filing civil suit for specific performance of contract of the alleged forged agreement, the first informant has filed injunction suit no.1243 of 2014; that the entire prosecution story is false and concocted; that the first informant herself has committed forgery and has tried to play fraud on the court; that the applicant has been falsely implicated in few cases of similar nature in all of which, he has been released on bail; that co-accused Rajesh Sharma, the husband of applicant has already been released on bail vide order dated 12.2.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, copy of which has been filed at Annexure No.2 to the affidavit; that applicant has no criminal history; that the applicant undertakes that she will not make misuse the liberty of bail; that the applicant is in custody since 23.9.2014. 3. Learned counsel for the first informant and learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail and contended that the applicant is a habitual offender and involved in several cases of similar nature. 3. Learned counsel for the first informant and learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail and contended that the applicant is a habitual offender and involved in several cases of similar nature. Learned counsel for the first informant paid reliance on the agreement dated 31.10.2012/4.11.2012, allegedly executed by Smt. Sangita Sharma, the applicant in favour of the first informant Smt. Brij Bala, but could not explain as to how in the agreement for sale dated 31.10.2012 having been notarized on 4.11.2012, there is a mention of cash payment of Rs.30 lakhs on 31.3.2013, which is a date more than four months in future from the date of execution of agreement for sale. His attempt to explain it, by saying it a typographical error also fails, as the same date i.e. 31.3.2013 of payment of Rs. 30 lakhs is also mentioned in F.I.R. 4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, period of custody of lady applicant, grant of bail to co-accused by sessions court as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail. 5. Let the applicant Smt. Sangita Sharma be released on bail in Case Crime No.373 of 2014, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Indrapuram, District Ghaziabad, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions: - (i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. (ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 6. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.