Amit v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12078 of 2023 Applicant :- Amit Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunder Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶2This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 19 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Bachharayun, District Amroha, during the pendency of investigation.

¶3In short, allegation against the applicant is that he along with other accused persons are said to have prepared forged documents for the sale of agricultural land registered in the name of father and uncle of the informant and with the help of imposter got the sale deed executed in his favour and in the sale deed, the applicants identified fake persons as witnesses.

¶4It is submitted that in this case applicant is innocent and ha been falsely implicated by the police with ulterior motive. Applicant is bonafide purchaser. There is no credible evidence to connect the applicant with the crime in question. The applicant is under apprehension of imminent arrest. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the trial.

¶5Learned Additional Government Advocate, has opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant is named in the FIR. Allegations against him are that he along with other co accused persons prepared forged documents and got the land of informant's father registered in his name by imposing fake persons. It is further submitted that father and uncle of of the informant had already died in the year 1985 and 1987 respectively, therefore, no case for bail is made out.

¶6In the light of above, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties as mentioned above, taking into consideration the role assigned to the applicant as per prosecution case, gravity and nature of accusation, this Court is of the view that no case for exercising its discretionary power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is made out in favour of applicant.

¶7Accordingly, this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected. Applicant is directed to move regular bail application before the appropriate forum and if such application is given, the court below shall consider and disposed of the bail application expeditiously in accordance with law. Order Date :- 3.11.2023 RavindraKSingh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad