Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38161 of 2019 Applicant :- Sunil Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- P.K. Singh,Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Vakalatnama, filed, today, by Srvasri Kartikeya Saran and Subod Kumar Rai, Advocates, on behalf of informant, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned private counsel, appearing for the informant, as well as, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This application for anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant, Sunil Tiwari, for grant of anticipatory bail, during the course of investigation in Case Crime No. 678 of 2019, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Naini, District Prayagraj/Allahabad.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is a bonafide witness, who has put his signature, as an attesting witness, over alleged sale deed, which was got executed in favour of Bhan Singh, by some fraud and fictitious person, claiming himself to be Ankur Agrawal and this was identified by his relatives, who have previously executed sale deed, which was witnessed by this witness previously, also. There is no malafide on his part. He is admitted to be a marginal witness of said sale deed. Fraud, if any, has been committed by the person, who has executed this sale deed, under a false identity and the person, who purchased the land, through it. A case has been got registered and there is likelihood of arrest of the applicant, hence this Anticipatory Bail Application.
Learned private counsel, appearing for the informant, as well as learned AGA, representing State of U.P., have vehemently opposed this Anticipatory Bail Application, with this contention that the applicant is an employee in a School of which Bhan Singh is the owner and the sale deed was executed when the informant was at abroad. There was faraud and fabricated and fictitious Adhar Card. This deed was got executed by fraud and impersonation.
Having heard learned counsel for both sides and gone through above rival contentions, it is apparent that applicant is admitting his signature over sale deed and execution of sale deed is not being denied. He is also admitting fact of putting his signature as marginal witness on the sale deed, but the same is said to be under bonafide intention. Now, this is a question of trial as to whether applicant too was involved in the forgery while execution of sale deed was done by committing fraud or it was beneficiary alone, who did all this.
Under all above facts and circumstances, a case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.
Hence this application is allowed.
The applicant, Sunil Tiwari, involved in above mentioned Case Crime number, is granted anticipatory bail and is directed to furnish a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, till submission of the report by the Police, under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., with the following conditions.
(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police office as and when required;
(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office;
(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court concerned and if he has passport the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.
In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
He is further directed to furnish an undertaking that he will not interfere with investigation and will not influence any one of the witnesses. He will not tamper with evidence and will not indulge himself in any criminal activity.
Order Date :- 26.9.2019 bgs/