Uttarakhand High Court
Ved Prakash Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand on 4 April, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Second Bail Application No.384 of 2023
Ved Prakash Sharma ........Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary and Mr. Alok Kumar Sharma,
Advocates for the applicant.
Mr. M.A. Khan, AGA with Mr. Vipul Painuli, Brief Holder for
the State.
Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate for the informant.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Applicant Ved Prakash Sharma is in judicial custody in FIR No.17 of 2020, dated 14.01.2020, under Sections 420, 120-B IPC, Police Station Kotwali Jwalapur, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail. This is the second bail application of the applicant. His first bail application has already been decided on 08.11.2023 treating the same as a short term bail application.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. According to the FIR, certain land was vested in the State of Uttarakhand by an order of the Court on 05.04.1990. Subsequently, the land was leased to Bhumanand Dharmartha Netra Chikitsalaya ("the Trust") in the year 2003 and 2005, but the FIR records that the applicant along with the co-accused got some 2 power of attorney of some alleged vendor and got executed the sale-deed in their favour of the land which had already been leased out to the trust. Thereafter, according to the FIR, in other criminal proceedings the applicant used forged sale-deeds as sureties.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that earlier FIR No.335 of 2004 was lodged by the Trust against the applicant and others with regard to the same allegations i.e. forging power of attorney and executing sale-deeds in their favour. It is argued that in that FIR the trial of the applicant is still underway. Learned counsel would submit that on similar facts, second FIR may not be entertained.
5. In addition to it, it is also argued that the orders vesting the land in the State were challenged by the applicant before the Board of Revenue and that order was stayed by the Board of Revenue. During that period sale-deeds were executed. Therefore, it is argued that the applicant did not commit any offence. It is a case fit for bail.
6. Learned counsel for the informant would submit that the applicant is a habitual offender; in one 3 of the case of attempt to murder, he has been convicted, of which appeal is pending; he is on bail in that matter.
7. Learned counsel for the informant admits this fact that earlier FIR No.335 of 2004 was lodged in Police Station Jwalapur, District Haridwar with regard to forging of power of attorney and execution of the sale- deed in favour of the applicant and the co-accused. But, it is argued that in the instant FIR the allegations are little more than the earlier FIR. The forged sale-deeds were produced by the applicant and co-accused in other criminal cases as sureties. It is also argued that there are 21 cases pending against the applicant.
8. Learned State counsel adopted the arguments raised by learned counsel for the informant.
9. It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion at this stage is to be avoided. To the extent of appreciating the controversy the matter may be examined with the caveat that any observation made at this stage shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the case.
10. It is admitted that FIR No.335 of 2004, Police Station Jwalapur, District Haridwar was lodged by the Trust against the applicant and the co-accused with 4 regard to purchase of land which have been vested in the State and which was leased to the Trust on the basis of forged power of attorney. That part of allegation is similar in the instant FIR and in the earlier FIR. It is admitted also that the sale-deeds which were executed in favour of the applicant have yet not been cancelled by the competent court of law. The trial with regard to forgery of sale-deeds is pending.
11. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
12. The bail application is allowed.
13. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
14. When these lines are dictated, learned counsel for the informant would submit that certain conditions may be imposed on the applicant including that the applicant shall not visit the land that has been leased out to the Trust.
5
15. Learned counsel for the applicant agrees that this condition may be imposed that the applicant will not enter into the land which is leased out to the trust.
16. The bail granted to the applicant shall be subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not contact the informant or any other witness of the case.
(ii) He shall not leave the country without prior permission of the concerned court.
(iii) He shall deposit his passport with the court concerned. The passport may only be returned by the order of the court concerned. In case, if the applicant does not have passport, he shall give an undertaking to that effect to the court concerned.
(iv) The applicant shall not enter in the land which is leased out to the Trust.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 04.04.2024 Sanjay