Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 318 (UTT)

Imran Ahmad v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-05-08

ALOK KUMAR VERMA

body2024
JUDGMENT : ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. 1. The present Application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the applicant for grant of regular bail in connection with the First Information Report No. 107 of 2023, registered at police station Kotwali Dehradun, District Dehradun. 2. The present applicant-Imran Ahmad is in judicial custody for the offence under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 and Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the applicant, who is an advocate, entered into a criminal conspiracy with the co-accused to prepare false sale deeds and to submit the same to the Sub-Registrar Office. Mutation proceedings were carried out on the basis of the false sale deeds, after which, the properties were further sold on the basis of the forged sale deeds. 4. Heard Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel with Mr. P.C. Petshali, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mrs. Mamta Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State. 5. Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate, contended that the applicant has been implicated on the basis of the sole statement of one Arpit Chawala, Advocate, given during the investigation. But, there is no basis for the said statement. No sale deed has been declared false by any court. No incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. The report of Forensic Science Laboratory is inconclusive in respect of the document relied upon by the prosecution against the applicant. Applicant is not a previous convict. He is an advocate and a permanent resident of District Dehradun, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. The present matter rests on the documentary evidence and charge-sheet along with relevant documents have already been filed by the Investigating Officer, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence, and, the applicant is in judicial custody since 17.08.2023. 6. On the other hand, Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the Bail Application. He submitted that Mr. Arpit Chawala, Advocate, has supported the case of the prosecution in his statement, recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, he conceded that the report of Forensic Science Laboratory does not indicate that the fake sale deeds were prepared by the applicant. 7. He submitted that Mr. Arpit Chawala, Advocate, has supported the case of the prosecution in his statement, recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, he conceded that the report of Forensic Science Laboratory does not indicate that the fake sale deeds were prepared by the applicant. 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, no reason is found 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-Imran Ahmad 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. 11. It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the prosecution agency will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.