Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 19391 of 2021 Applicant :- Durga Prasad Sonkar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Narayan Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard over anticipatory bail application, under Section 438 Cr.P.C., moved by the applicant-Durga Prasad Sonkar, in Case Crime No. 457 of 2021, under Sections-419, 420, 467, 468, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Rohaniya, District- Varanasi.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is son of the informant and a false case was got registered, whereas, there is Civil Suit pending, in between and an injunction order is in favour of the applicant; the alleged tenancy deed was got executed by the applicant, wherein, the beneficiary is informant herself and this execution was by the applicant under instructions and authority given by the informant; there is no benefit of applicant nor any occasion occurs for any fraud to be committed by the applicant; the dispute arose with regard to premium of Rs. 30,000/- in between Ram Lal and Informant, as a result of which this false implication was got made; there is apprehension of arrest by police, hence anticipatory bail application was moved before the Sessions Court, whereat it was rejected summarily, hence, this application for anticipatory bail with above prayer.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed with this contention that the execution of tenancy deed is undisputed; it is said to be executed under instruction and authority of informant, whereas, informant has categorically said that there was no instruction or authority and the photograph and signatures was manufactured; it was a forged and fabricated deed; the same is in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.; it is a fraud committed by a son with his mother, for which this case was got lodged; investigation is in process and there is every likelihood of tampering with evidence in case of release on anticipatory bail.
Having heard and gone through material placed on record, it is apparent that the alleged tenancy deed has been said to be fraudulent, fabricated and manufactured by informant's son i.e. present applicant and the execution of that deed is undisputed, but is being said to be executed under the instruction and authority of informant, who is beneficiary of the same. The question is not of beneficiary or authority rather, manufacturing of forged and fabricated deed by making forged signature and photograph is there.
Considering all those facts and circumstances of the case and law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98, but without commenting on the merits of the case, no indulgence for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.
Accordingly, anticipatory bail application is rejected.
However, applicant may move regular bail before the Court concerned.
Order Date :- 17.12.2021 Deepak/