Allahabad High Court
Parvati Devi vs State Of U.P. on 26 June, 2020
Author: Ali Zamin
Bench: Ali Zamin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?In Chamber Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6259 of 2020 Applicant :- Parvati Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amarnath Tripathi,Indra Kumar Chaturvedi(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dinesh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.
Heard Sri Indra Kumar Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Amarnath Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Sri O.P.Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh through Video Conferencing, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party and Sri Ghanshyam, learned A.G.A.Ist assisted by Sri Jai Prakash Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.500 of 2015, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C., P.S. Cantt., District Varanasi.
As per FIR version, Parvati Devi, wife of Shiv Nath Yadav and Gayatri Devi wife of Lalji purchased Gata No. 674 area 0.160 hectare and Gata No.673 area 0.173 hectare on 09.12.1998 from one Rajai @ Rajnath and name of purchasers were mutated in the revenue record by order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 12.03.1999. Accused Shiv Nath son of Munshi by preparing forged papers moved an application dated 30.05.2001, under Section 42-A of U.P.C.H.Act and on that application the Consolidation Officer passed an order dated 11.06.2001 to rectify the address of Parvati Devi as 26/237 B 10 Shyampuri Colony, Block B, Meerapur Basahi, Pargana Shivpur, District Varanasi in place of 24/2 Tajpur, Ardali Bazar, Pargana Shivpur, District Varanasi, which was mentioned in the registered sale deed dated 09.12.1998. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that Gayatri Devi wife of complainant's brother moved a review/recall application to cancel the rectification alleging that Parvati is not the Parvati, who is mentioned in the sale deed. On 20.11.2002, Consolidation Officer declared that there is no lady in the village in the name of Parvati Devi wife of Shiv Nath @ Yogendra because she has no locus with her name. On 09.07.2003, the properties of both the purchasers were earmarked. Property no. 143(a) was recorded in favour of Parvati Devi, wife of Shiv Nath and property no. 143(b) was recorded in favour of Gayatri Devi. On an application of complainant Lalji Yadav to District Magistrate an enquiry was conducted Lalmani, Village Secretary, who had added the name of Parvati, wife of Shiv Nath @ Yogendra was found guilty and was suspended. A first information report under Section 419, 420 I.P.C. was registered in which charge sheet was submitted on 18.06.2017, thereafter, Lalmani is absconding. On 18.07.2018, Chief Revenue Officer declared that Parvati Devi, wife of Shiv Nath Yadav and Gayatri Devi, wife of Lalji are equal co-sharer of disputed property. Address of Parvati Devi, wife of Shiv Nath Yadav was kept intact. Against the order dated 18.07.2018, Parvati Devi approached to this Court through Writ-B No. 5423 of 2018 (Parwati Devi And Another Vs. Chief Revenue Officer And Another) in which a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.10.2018 stayed the effect and operation of the impugned order 18.07.2018. On 28.08.2015, Lalji Yadav had lodged an FIR with the allegation that the husband of applicant-Parvati Devi is an Advocate and by exercising undue influence has obtained the order dated 11.06.2001. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that it is a case of civil nature, writ is also pending before this Court for its admission. He submits that the applicant is suffering because her husband is a practising advocate. It is also submitted that the applicant is an illitrate house wife aged about 60 years and has no concern with the incident alleged in the FIR. The applicant has not committed the alleged offence. She has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no criminal history of the applicant and she is languishing in jail since 02.01.2020.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complaint submit that the sale deed was executed in favour of Parvati Devi and Gayatri Devi at the address of House No.S-24/2 Tajpur, Ardali Bazar, Varansi. When the land was purchased address of both purchasers was same. Subsequently, an application for rectification of address was moved by the applicant on 30.05.2001 before the Consolidation Officer, which was allowed vide order dated 11.06.2001. Thereafter, a recall application was filed, which was rejected vide order dated 20.11.2002, against which Parvati Devi wife of younger brother of informant moved Revision No. 1052/232 (Parvati vs. Parvati) before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who again remanded the case before the Consolidation Officer and Consolidation Officer vide order dated 10.11.2014 kept the original address of the sale deed intact. The applicant then moved Review Petition No.2 of 2018 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation/Chief Revenue Officer, in which Deputy Director of Consolidation kept the address mentioned in the sale deed intact and the Writ-B No.5423 of 2018 is pending before this Court. It is further submitted that the name of Parvati Devi and Gayatri Devi was mutated on 12.01.1999 by the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer. Thereafter, applicant has moved an application for change of address mentioned in the sale deed. It is also submitted that the applicant moved an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.38217 of 2016 (Shiv Nath Yadav And Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another), which was rejected vide order dated 30.10.2019. Thereafter, the applicant moved a discharge application, which was also rejected on 06.01.2020. In para 21 of the counter affidavit it is mentioned that the applicant is permanent resident of village Tala, Pargana Katehar, Tehsil and District Varanasi and informant is resident of village Odar, Pargana Kolasla, Tehsil and District Varanasi. The fact regarding the address has been discussed by this Court in its order dated 30.10.2019. Against the order dated 09.07.2003, Parvati Devi wife of complainant and Gayatri Devi wife of younger brother of complaint filed Revision No. 755 of 2010 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi. Thereafter, Revision No.1052/232 and Revision No.755 of 2010 were clubbed and on behest of complainant both the revisions were transferred to Chief Revision Officer, who by order dated 12.08.2014 set aside the orders dated 20.11.2002 and 09.07.2003 and the matter was remanded to Consolidation Officer to decide the matter afresh. He further, submits that on 02.01.2020, in the lower court bail application of the applicant was rejected and hue and cry was raised on behalf of husband of the applicant, regarding which papers are annexed at page no.76 of the counter affidavit. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the material on record, matter still being pending before this Court, nature of the offence and applicant being illitrate house wife & aged lady, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail, let the applicant- Parvati Devi involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions :-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will not tamper with the evidence and will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and will cooperate with the trial. The applicant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) 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 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
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. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 26.6.2020 MAA/-