Sanjay Kumar Sahgal v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9648 of 2023 Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Sahgal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kumar Beenu Singh,Saurabh Sachan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bairister Singh,Diwan Saifullah Khan Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶1List has been revised.

¶2Heard Sri Saurabh Sachan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Bairister Singh and Sri Diwan Saifullah Khan, learned counsels for the informant as well as Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶3The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 834 of 2019, under Sections 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 406 of IPC, Police Station Cantt., District Varanasi, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶4As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have forged a will-deed of the real testator of the land and had executed the sale-deed of the said land to the informant on 31.05.2016 for a consideration of Rs. 25 lakhs.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has apprehension of his arrest. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has further stated that the said money has been transferred to the applicant through bonafide instruments and it was mentioned in the said sale-deed that the possession of the land has been given to the informant but later on, he has stated that he has been deprived of the possession. Learned counsel has further stated that the foster grand-son of the deceased person and the applicant had entered into several litigations, as such, the matter has been settled once for all. The informant was also made a party to the said settlement but he is still pressing the present subject matter.

¶6Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶7On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the said sale-deed was found forged as the deceased was admitted in the hospital on 18.05.2016 i.e. the date of execution of the said sale-deed and he died on the next date i.e. on 19.05.2016. The informant has been duped of his hard earned money, as such, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶8Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98" and also the fact that since the matter pertains to civil litigations between the parties, I find it a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶9Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.

¶10In the event of arrest of the applicant, Sanjay Kumar Sahgal involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:- i. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; ii. that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court; iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶11In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶12It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. (Justice Krishan Pahal) Order Date :- 16.10.2023 Siddhant High Court of Judicature at Allahabad