Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1995 (ALL)

Vaibhav Kela v. State Of U. P.

2023-08-21

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri J.L. Maurya, the learned State Counsel as well as Sri Amit Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 184 of 2023, under Section 406 and 420 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged on 14.04.2023, alleging that the informant had paid Rs.9,77,497/-for purchasing a plot from Pressa Promoter and Retailer, through the applicant and besides the aforesaid amount, he has paid Rs. 5,23,000/-in cash. However, no date of making the aforesaid payment has been disclosed in the F.I.R. The informant had stated that neither his money was refunded nor was a conveyance deed executed in his favour. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. In para 25 of the affidavit, the applicant's involvement in four other cases has been disclosed, in three of which he has already been granted bail by the Session Court. 5. From the material placed before the court at this stage, it appears that the money was allegedly paid for purchasing some immovable property worth more than Rs. 100/-and no agreement has been executed in this regard and no stamp duty has been paid. Moreover, when the agreement itself has not been executed, no occasion for registration of the same arose. 6. The learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application and he has submitted that the applicant is involved in several other cases of similar nature and several persons had been deceived in similar manner. 7. The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of the bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter. 8. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the grievance of the applicant is regarding non refund of money and non transfer of any immovable property; that the informant claims to have paid Rs. 8. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the grievance of the applicant is regarding non refund of money and non transfer of any immovable property; that the informant claims to have paid Rs. 5,23,000/-in cash but neither the date of making the payment nor the source of cash payment has been disclosed in the F.I.R; that it appear that no registered agreement has been executed between the parties regarding transfer of immovable property; no suit has been filed for recovery of money; the dispute appears to be predominantly of a civil nature, coupled with the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 14.04.2023 and without making any observations which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail. 9. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed. 10. Let the applicant-Vaibhav Kela be released on bail in the aforesaid case, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to the following conditions: - (i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.