Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30345 of 2018 Applicant :- Shiv Karan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Vikram Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,R.N.Singh,S.D.Yadav
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The allegation in the first information report is that applicant has initially sold land in dispute in the year 1992 in favour of wife of the informant. He has subsequently executed sale deed of the same land in favour of his wife Maya Devi in 2010.
The argument is that earlier sale deed of the year 1992 is not a genuine sale deed and its due execution has been denied by the applicant. He alleges that earlier sale deed was never executed by him and subsequently sale deed executed in favour of his wife Maya Devi is valid and Maya Devi has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 03.08.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.29152 of 2018.
On the other hand learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail.
Learned counsel for the informant has argued that the applicant has executed the sale deed in the year 1992 and now he is falsely denying its due execution. He has not instituted Suit for cancellation of the same. It has further been argued that the case of his wife is distinguishable from his case. He is not entitled to be released on bail.
After hearing rival contentions, it is clear that the applicant is denying the sale deed 1992 executed in favour of wife of the informant and the informant is disputing the sale deed executed by the applicant in favour of his wife in the year 2010. This issue cannot be decided in this proceedings. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 06.06.2018.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Shiv Karan involved in Case No.2114 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No.56 of 2011, under Sections 420 IPC, Police Station Thariyaon, District- Fatehpur be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected of the commission of which they are suspected.
5. 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.
Order Date :- 24.9.2018 SS