Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 777 (ALL)

Vidhya Sagar v. State of U. P.

2023-03-22

JYOTSNA SHARMA

body2023
JUDGMENT : JYOTSNA SHARMA, J. 1. Heard Sri Abhay Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Indra Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the first informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant-Vidhya Sagar seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 429 of 2022, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station-Phoolpur, District-Prayagraj. 3. As per allegations in the F.I.R. co-accused Shiv Kumar deceptively demonstrated himself as the owner of the land in question and executed a sale deed for sale consideration of Rs. 60 lacs; it is alleged therein that the sale deed dated 08.07.2022 was executed in favour of the first informant's wife on the basis of a previous sale deed dated 08.10.2021 purportedly executed by one Radhey Shyam in favour of the seller; it is later revealed to the first informant that infact Radhey Shyam had died in the year 1977 and the present applicant stood in his place impersonating him to execute that sale deed in favour of co-accused Shiv Kumar. 4. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that he is innocent; his name has not been mentioned in the F.I.R. the F.I.R. does not assign any role to him; his name was, for the first time, revealed by the co-accused Shiv Kumar during the course of investigation, but no reliance can be placed on it; he never received any money; the matter relates to sale of property and therefore to its sale deed, genuineness whereof can only be decided by a civil court; he never knew Radhey Shyam; he has no criminal history, therefore his liberty may be protected by grant of anticipatory bail. 5. The application for anticipatory is opposed by the learned A.G.A. and counsel for the first informant highlighting certain facts, circumstances and placing some arguments as below: (I) Though the applicant has not been named in the F.I.R. however his name has come in the statement of co-accused Shiv Kumar, who is the main culprit; statement of co-accused is such a piece of evidence, which may have nil evidentiary value for the purpose of trial, but it is invaluable for the purpose of investigation, which may further open links to the modus-operandi adapted by the applicant and also the links to other persons involved. (II) This fact has nowhere being denied by the applicant that Radhey Shyam, the purported executor of the sale deed dated 10.08.2021 had died about more than 42 years ago. (III) There is no suggestion that the co-accused has falsely implicated the present applicant. (IV) The aforesaid sale deed bears photographs of the present applicant, not of Radhey Shyam (the seller) and the forged signature has also been put by him denoting himself as Radhey Shyam in the wake of such kind of evidence coming into light during the course of investigation, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail. (V) No law says that every dispute where a sale deed/sale of property is in question should be treated as a matter of civil nature. (VI) The applicant has failed to give any probable reason for false implication to say the least. Moreover, matter may require effective interrogation of the applicant. 6. Prima-facie, it does not appear that the F.I.R. has been lodged against him with the purpose of bringing disgrace or cause humiliation to him by having him arrested in a mala-fide manner. It may also be kept in mind that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be exercised in suitable cases only. The powers under section 438 Cr.P.C. cannot be utilized in a routine manner and definitely as a substitute for regular bail. This discretionary power calls for existence of facts of the kind where the court is satisfied that its interference is necessary to further the cause of justice and to prevent misuse of process of law. 7. I considered the submissions of both the sides in the light of material on record, nature of accusations, merits of the evidence collected so far. The purpose of grant of anticipatory bail cannot be to stall the effective and fruitful investigation, which may be required in the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case. There are of course matters, which may outwardly appear merely civil dispute but may have obvious or not too obvious fine and distinct strands bringing the matter within the definition of different offences. The courts are expected to keep such distinctions in mind while dealing with bails/anticipatory bails in such cases and not to go about in a routine or cursory manner. I am of the view that no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. 8. The courts are expected to keep such distinctions in mind while dealing with bails/anticipatory bails in such cases and not to go about in a routine or cursory manner. I am of the view that no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. 8. Hence the anticipatory bail application is rejected. 9. However, any of the observations made herein shall not be taken as a comment on merits of the case and the court below shall be at liberty to form its own opinion at the stage of trial. 10. Let a copy of this order be certified to the court concerned.