Allahabad High Court
Satendra Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 7 April, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 50 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1488 of 2023 Appellant :- Satendra Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Kumar Upadhyay,Shailendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
Heard Shri Ashok Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Virendra Singh and Aditya Sharma, learned counsel first informant as well as Sri Deepak Kapoor, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short SC/ST Act) has been preferred by the appellant Satinder Singh to set aside the impugned order dated 01.02.2023, whereby the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bijnor has rejected the Bail Application No. 281 of 2023 of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 263 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C & Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Afjalgarh, District Bijnor.
The brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 02.09.2021 was lodged against the appellant and other 3 named accused persons stating that the co-accused Maya Devi along with the other 3 named co-accused persons prepared a forged registered will dated 14.06.2007 with regard to Khasra No. 161 and Khata No. 50 and on the basis of forged and fabricated will name of Maya Devi mutated in Revenue Record by ex-parte order. After then mutation order was set aside by the Revenue Authorities after hearing the parties.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The appellant is not beneficiary of the alleged will dated 14.06.2007. It is further submitted that the will dated 14.06.2007 is not declared void by civil court. It is further submitted that the case is triable by the Magistrate. It is submitted that as per prosecution evidence the appellant is witness of forged will dated 14.06.2007. It is further submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 25.01.2023. The appellant has explained in para 33 of the affidavit to bail application criminal history of one case registered by Case Crime No. 0016 of 2023 under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Da) and 3(1)(Dha) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act, wherein he has been enlarged on bail and copy of F.I.R. is filed as Annexure No. 11 to the affidavit. The other case is registered against appellant under Section 174 A I.P.C. with regard to his alleged abscondence in present case. He next submitted that role to present appellant is that he is marginal witness to disputed will deed dated 14.06.2007 along with co-accused Nirmal Singh, who is also marginal witness of said will deed and has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 19.11.2022 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1703 of 2022. He further submitted that the appellant has denied his signature on disputed will deed and specific averment is made in para 12 of the affidavit in this regard that signatures found on the will deed dated 14.06.2007 has not been found to be of the appellant after having been examined and compared by the handwriting expert with actual signatures of the appellant and report to this effect is submitted by handwriting expert on 24.07.2021. Many will deeds were executed after mutation order passed on basis of sale deed passed in favour of beneficiary. He lastly submitted that accused deserves to be released on bail. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the appellant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Per contra, learned counsel for first informant submitted that apart from the fact that accused appellant is marginal witness of alleged sale deed, he got a registered sale deed of a portion of disputed plot covered by impugned sale deed, in favour of his wife Maya Devi- the beneficiary of the said sale deed that is registered on 03.08.2021. The respondent No. 2 has moved an application for lodging an F.I.R. with regard to this sale deed also which is pending before the police. Learned counsel further submitted that Civil Suit No. 852 of 2021 (Gulab Singh Vs. Smt. Maya Devi) has been filed by the beneficiary Maya Devi who is also co-accused in the case, on the strength of impugned will deed, however, her application for temporary injunction has been rejected by Addl. District Judge in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 06 of 2021 finally, as prior to this the temporary injunction application 6C was dismissed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division vide order dated 18.09.2021 in said civil suit. He next submitted that Tehsildar, Bijnor has cancelled mutation order dated 2.08.2021, vide order dated 06.08.2021, in cancellation proceedings and the impugned will deed dated 14.06.2007 has been found forged and fictitious.
Learned A.G.A. also opposed prayer for bail made in present criminal appeal on basis of totality of facts and circumstances. He further submit that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
After considering the facts of the present case, it prima facie appears that;
(a) The FIR has been lodged against 3 named persons including the appellant;
(b) The appellant is not beneficiary of the alleged will dated 14.06.2007;
(c) As per prosecution evidence the appellant is witness of forged will dated 14.06.2007;
(d) The appellant is languishing in jail since 25.01.2023.
It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.
Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118, the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail.
Hence, the present criminal appeal is allowed and impugned order dated 01.02.2023 is set aside.
Let appellant- Satendra Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:
(i) The appellant 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 officer or tamper with the evidence.
(ii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The appellant 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 of Cr.P.C.
(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.
(v) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
(vi) The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law.
The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.
It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked;
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.
Order Date :- 7.4.2023 Nitika