Ramlal @ Ramlal Patel v. State of U.P

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6873 of 2023 Applicant :- Ramlal @ Ramlal Patel Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Chaturvedi,Sarvesh Chaubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ravish Chandra Srivastava Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶1None present on behalf of the informant even in the revised list.

¶2Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶3Apprehending his arrest, the present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Ramlal @ Ramlal Patel in Case Crime No.400 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Rohaniya, District Varanasi, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶4Alleging that a forged sale deed wherein Smt. Jageshwari was shown as vendor was procured by the applicant in his favour and also showing it to be executed in the year 1924 in his favour, whereas the said Jageshwari had already died in the year 1905, an F.I.R. was lodged on 7.7.2018 and investigation started and now charge-sheet has been submitted in the matter.

¶5It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. He has been falsely implicated into this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. The investigation of the case has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed. It is further submitted that an Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.12120 of 2021 was moved by the present applicant wherein no relief was granted to the applicant and it was disposed of. It is also submitted that a criminal revision was also preferred by the applicant bearing no.3124 of 2021, but in the said proceeding, not stay order was granted in favour of the applicant although the said revision is still pending. It is also submitted that as a matter of fact, Smt. Jageshwari, who is said to be died in 1905, is another lady and Smt. Jageshwari. who is said to be the present vendor of the sale deed executed in favour of the applicant, is a different lady. The sale deed was executed in 1924 and when the copy of the same was submitted in 2015 in the Court after 90 years of its execution, its validity was put under question by the informant. Admittedly a civil suit is pending between the parties regarding the sale deed. It is also submitted that the dispute relates to purely civil in nature. It is further submitted that the criminal history of the applicant has been explained. No custodial interrogation is required in the matter and as such the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶6Per contra, learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, but he could not dispute this factual aspect that a civil suit is pending between the parties in respect of the sale deed in question.

¶7Although charge-sheet has been submitted in this matter, but in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial. It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶8In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that : "11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170CrPC which had been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173CrPC. It has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under Section 87CrPC that the accused has either been absconding or shall not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii) above by the High Court are in the nature of caution.

¶12Insofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170CrPC, the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge-sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this."

¶9Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till end of the trial in the matter.

¶10The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶11In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till end of the trial on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

(i) The applicant shall make himself available before the court concerned on the date fixed in the matter;

(ii) 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 / her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶12In case of default of any of the conditions, same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant. Order Date :- 29.11.2023 ss High Court of Judicature at Allahabad