Guddi Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10517 of 2023 Applicant :- Guddi Devi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶1List has been revised.

¶2Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶3Heard Sri Karunesh Narayan Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shailendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶4The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Case No.1485 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No.404 of 2021, registered under Section 420 I.P.C. at Police Station-Thathiya, District-Kannauj with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶5As per prosecution story, the applicant no.1 is stated to have purchased a plot of land having dimensions of 62 feet/35 feet in the year 2013 and had sold a part of its land having dimensions 62 feet/21 feet to the informant in the year 2015, as such, the plot 62 feet/14 feet remains to be sold to anybody. It is alleged that the applicant no.1 had executed a forged sale deed in favour of another person, thereby causing loss to the informant.

¶6Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant no.1 had filed a Civil Suit No.61 of 2018 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kannauj against the informant and other persons for restraining them from illegally taking possession of the land belonging to her. Learned counsel has further stated that the matter of civil nature has been converted into criminal one. As a counterblast, the current FIR has been instituted in the year 2021. There FIR is delayed by about more than three years and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The applicants have no criminal history to their credit.

¶7Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest. Learned counsel has stated that the applicants undertake that they have co-operated in the investigation and are ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶8Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants.

¶9On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants, the applicants are liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi),

(2020) 5 SCC 1". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶10In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed. Let the accused-applicants-Guddi Devi and Ramashankar Shukla be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i). that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii). that the applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

(iii). that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

(v). that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

(vi). that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶10It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial. Order Date :- 6.11.2023 Vikas [Krishan Pahal, J.] High Court of Judicature at Allahabad