Court No. - 68
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34306 of 2021 Applicant :- Smt. Parvati @ Gillo Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Nanhe Lal Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A., is taken on record.
Heard Sri Nanhe Lal Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the case.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Smt. Parvati @ Gillo under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 181 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Mehrauni, District Lalitpur, during pendency of the trial.
As per the first information report dated 20.08.2019 has been lodged against the applicant and 5 other named persons stating that the applicant, who is an imposter and possess herself as Smt. Angoori Devi, who is the real owner of property in dispute and applicant and five other co-accused persons made conspiracy and got prepared fabricated documents pertaining to the property in dispute and executed a sale-deed dated 29.05.2019 in favour of informant and her daughter-in-laws for consideration of Rs.30 lacs out of which Rs.12 lacs has been taken as an advance from the informant and rest of the amount of consideration was requested to be paid as cash, her request was accepted and remaining money, i.e., Rs.18 lacs were paid in cash. When the informant tried to take physical possession of property in dispute on the spot, she was told that from whom he purchased the land was not real owner rather she is an imposter.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to malafide intention. He next submitted that the first information report has been lodged on the basis of false and frivolous allegations. The applicant has not executed any sale deed as imposter of Smt. Angoori Devi. He further contended that applicant has not received a single penny in that transaction and nor any money has been transferred in the account of applicant. He further submitted that as per the statement of the informant, in which he has stated that he has filed a civil suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 29.05.2019, which is still pending for consideration. It has also been submitted that co-accused, Smt. Vineeta, Mohan and Nandram and Ajit Iliyas @ Bhajju and Pappu @ Veer Singh, having similar role, have already been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 02.09.2020, 22.09.2020 and 29.09.2020, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 24302 of 2020, 27519 of 2020 and 28459 of 2020, respectively and the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.
It is next contended that no other criminal antecedent to her credit. It is next submitted that there is also no possibility of the applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. The applicant, who is languishing in jail since 27.01.2021, undertakes that she will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. In case the applicant is released on bail, she will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
It is settled position of law that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, the Apex Court observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and opined para 2 "The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court. We do. not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative." and considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, larger mandate of Article 21 of the constitution of India, the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused-applicant, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/ State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.
Let applicant, Smt. Parvati @ Gillo be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions-
(i) 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 her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 30.9.2021 Ishan