Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38333 of 2019 Applicant :- Yogesh Agarwal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Singh,Ashish Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.
This application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved by Yogesh Agarwal in Case Crime No. 185 of 2019, under Sections 406, 120-B, 420 I.P.C., P.S. Vrindavan, District Mathura.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that accused applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number, contention of which is of civil nature. Even if the same is being admitted, the relief is of filing civil suit for specific performance of contract and no criminal liability is there. This informant has previously filed a case crime No. 9 of 2018 against applicant and subsequently this second report has been filed. This is under intention to harass applicant by informant who is resident of same village. Hence, this anticipatory bail has been prayed for.
Learned learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.
Having heard learned counsels for both sides and gone through rival contentions, it is apparent that Case Crime No. 9 of 2018 was filed for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 406 and 504 I.P.C., wherein on the basis of sale deed was got executed for a land, which was not of the conduct and Rs. 23,50,000/-, were taken as consideration. Subsequently, this case was got registered. Role assigned to Sarvesh and Yogesh son of Kailash Chandra, was that he introduced Raj Kumar Singhal and assured above land to be of Raj Kumar Singhal, who got this deed executed whereas present application for anticipatory bail is in Case Crime No. 185 of 2019, wherein informant Ganga Saran has been duped by Yogesh Agrawal and Kailash Agrawal,who are resident of his own village and who by mis-statement about plot to be of their own, deceived Rs. 13 lacs for sale of same. Subsequently, this plot was alienated to someone else and when asked for, matter was being lingered. Subsequently, cheques were issued in lieu of payment of above Rs. 13 lacs, which were dishonoured and this entire episode was under deceit. Meaning, there is a previous incident of fraud and deception with manufacturing of forged and fictitious documents. This is the second offence of same nature. Under all above facts and circumstances, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
Hence, the anticipatory bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 27.9.2019 Kamarjahan