Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 19873 of 2021 Applicant :- Kundan Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Through Its Secretary Home Up At Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Shikhar Tandon,Aishwarya Pratap Singh,Ratnesh Kumar Shukla 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- Kundan Singh, in Case Crime No. 870 of 2021, under Sections- 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Ghaziabad Kotwali, District- Ghaziabad.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused- applicant is innocent; he is bonafide purchaser of house in question; he got it purchased by way of having loan from bank concerned and entire amount was deposited in the account of the owner of house in question; it was a fraud by Lakshya Tanwar, who was the modus operandi and four persons including applicant have been duped by his fraud; the lady, who executed deed in favour of applicant, claimed herself to be real owner whereas after this FIR, it was revealed that she herself was a fraud; the real owner was informant and recourse of suit for cancellation of above deed has been taken; applicant is already victim of above fraud of Lakshya Tanwar; he is bonafide purchaser having no mensrea of this fraud; he himself is victim as well as three others were also victim and one of the bonafide purchasers has been given protection by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court; there is apprehension of arrest by police, applicant moved anticipatory bail application before court concerned, but it was rejected, hence this application for anticipatory bail with above prayer.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed with this contention that informant Smt. Mahendri Devi is the owner of house in question; she being an old lady, was having Power of Attorney in four of her son; subsequently, on one day few bank employees went at her residence and apprised about the loan for above house, she was surprised, then she made inquiry and it came to know that house has been purchased by Kundan Singh and the others involved in above transaction was also disclosed; thenafter, having information of registered sale deed executed in favour of Kundan Singh by fraud, this report was got lodged;
applicant has said himself to be duped by Lakshya Tanwar but the accusation in first information report as well as in statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. is against named accused persons as well as bank employees, who were under conspiracy for sanction of this loan and withdrawal of money, under forged and fictitious account; offence is very heinous of land grabbing and the investigation is in process, in case of grant of anticipatory bail, it may be hampered.
Having heard and gone through material placed on record as well as 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, no indulgence for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.
Accordingly, anticipatory bail application is rejected.
However, in case, applicant approach the trial court with bail application, same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC), Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Order Date :- 21.12.2021 Kamarjahan Digitally signed by RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM Date: 2021.12.22 16:57:05 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad