Allahabad High Court
Manish Chandauk vs State Of U.P. on 22 April, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:69874 Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21226 of 2023 Applicant :- Manish Chandauk Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Awadhesh Kumar Malviya,Manoj Kumar,Rajat Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ajai Mani Tiwari,G.A.,Surendra Tiwari Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
1. Supplementary counter affidavit has been filed today, let it be kept on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the first-informant and perused the record.
3. This is the Ist bail application moved on behalf of applicant- Manish Chandauk with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.58 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Rakabganj, District Agra.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the F.I.R. has been lodged with a delay of six months. The cause of action is said to have arose in New Agra region. While, the F.I.R. has been wrongly lodged in Police Station Rakabganj. No power of attorney has been filed or placed before this Court. If any forgery was found, the first informant had the option of moving application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. The applicant-Manish Chandauk has no concern with Manish Singh or with the property of the first-informant as mentioned in the F.I.R. He is languishing in jail since 21.02.2023. In case applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in early hearing of the trial pending before the court concerned, hence, the prayer is made accordingly.
5. Learned counsel for the first-informant, however, opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that one Uma Devi had sold her property mentioned in the F.I.R. to Arvind Singh and Arvind Singh had executed a power of attorney in favaour of first-informant-Akash Deep, who had filed the execution of the case of ejectment fought between Uma Devi and one Surjit Gosh, and won by Uma Devi. At the time of hearing of the execution, the present applicant-Manish Chandauk filed an unregistered will in his favour by name of Manish Singh and claimed his rights over the disputed property. While, no will has been executed by Uma Devi in favour of any Manish Singh, the alleged son of Uma Devi. It is the applicant only who in the connivance of other co-accused persons has prepared a forged unregistered will in his favour just to oppose the execution proceedings. His anticipatory bail was rejected vide order dated 24.11.2022 by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and also by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Will is out of the scope of Section 340 Cr.P.C. The wife of the applicant had moved an application on behalf of Manish Singh before S.P. concerned so the present applicant cannot deny that he is only the Manish Chandauk and not Manish Singh, hence, on the basis of the allegations made in the F.I.R., the prayer for bail is opposed.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant, further, opposed the version of the learned counsel for the first-informant and submitted that he is only Manish Chandauk and not Manish Singh. The signatures of both the persons are quite different. It is also submitted that the applicant is suffering from cancer, while the allegation of cancer is denied by the learned counsel for the first-informant and is submitted by him that in the regular bail application, this ground has not been taken by the applicant, rather it was taken at the time of the anticipatory bail, which was not considered by the Court concerned.
7. As per F.I.R., the allegation against the applicant is that in the connivance of the co-accused persons he has prepared a forged unregistered will in his favour just to oppose the execution proceedings No. 779 of 2019 pending in the trial court. It is argued that Arvind Singh is the owner of the property in dispute, which he has purchased from one Uma Devi and the execution is being opposed by the present applicant-Manish Chandauk claiming himself to be Manish Singh and also claiming an unregistered will in his favour by Uma Devi.
8. While, in the open Court, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant-Manish Chandauk is only Manish Chandauk and is not Manish Singh. He is not claiming any will of Uma Devi in his favour. He has no concern with the property in dispute being House No. 34/ 153, 34/ 154, 34/156 situated at Kutlupur, Rakabganj, District Agra mentioned in the F.I.R. and the subject matter of Execution Case No. 779 of 2019 pending in the court of Additional District Judge, Court No.13, Agra.
9. As this Court is not to decide the matter of forgery at this stage, but as the applicant is denying any right over the property in dispute and he is denying himself to be Manish Singh or any will in his favour thus, in the opinion of the Court, this Court finds him to be entitled for bail with the condition that he would file an affidavit to this effect in the trial court within 15 days of his release on bail.
10. Perusing the record, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.
11. The bail application is allowed with the above condition of filing an affidavit by the applicant in the trial court within 15 days of his release.
12. Let the applicant-Manish Chandauk, who is involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
i. The applicant will attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the dates fixed after release. ii. The applicant will not tamper with the witnesses.
iii. The applicant will not indulge himself in any illegal activities during the bail period.
13. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
14. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
15. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 22.4.2024 Anurag/-