Allahabad High Court
Abhishek Tiwari Alias And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 May, 2023
Author: Subhash Chandra Sharma
Bench: Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:112396 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 308 of 2023 Applicant :- Abhishek Tiwari Alias And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rachna Pandey,Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Kumar Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
Rejoinder affidavits have been filed today in Court which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party along with learned A.G.A. for the State.
This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.37 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station - Jhunsi, District - Prayagraj.
It is submitted that applicants are innocent in this case and have committed no offence. Applicant no. 1 is son of applicant no. 2. As per the allegation in F.I.R., applicants worked as commission agent and traced on OLX App for purchase of property by the informant and applicant no. 1 came into contact with the informant and showed him a plot Khasra No. 118 to be owned by some Pratap Chandra S/o Thakur Deen. Rs. 75,000/- were transfered at the instance of the applicant no. 1 in the account of Jyoti Devi said to be wife of Pratap Chandra (owner of the land), through R.T.G.S., thereafter, Rs. 1,55,000/- were given to applicant no. 2 at the instance of the applicant no. 1. Thereafter, on 19.01.2022, Rs. 12,56,000/- were transferred in the account of Jyoti Devi through R.T.G.S. and Rs. 64,000/- through U.P.I. and Google Pay and Adhar Card of Jyoti Devi showing her as wife of Pratap Chandra was also shown to the informant by the applicant no. 1 and on 20.01.2022 the informant came to the office of Registrar at Phoolpur at the instance of applicant no. 1 for execution of sale-deed. There was no any seller and when the informant made contact with applicant no. 1, he refused for executing the sale-deed. At this situation, informant asked for repayment of money from applicant no. 1, he denied and threatened him. Later on, the forgery and cheating committed by the applicants and other co-accused persons came into his knowledge, as a result, he got the account of Jyoti Devi and applicant no. 2 seized by the bank and lodged the present F.I.R. It is further submitted that the land was owned by Pratap Chandra and agreement to sale was made between the informant and Pratap Chandra, money was also given to Jyoti Devi w/o Pratap Chandra, but not to the present applicants. Applicants only took money which was due in their favour as commission agent. In this way they have committed no offence and are innocent.
It is further submitted that the dispute is between the informant and Pratap Chandra (owner of the land) regarding which civil remedy is available to the informant but no offence is made out against them. Since charge-sheet has been filed after investigation and applicants are under apprehension of arrest, therefore, requested for anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the aforesaid prayer and urged that in this case applicant no. 2-Beena Tiwari is mother of the applicant no. 1 and Jyoti Devi is his wife whom he misrepresented to be wife of Pratap Chandra and got the amount of Rs. 12,56,000/- transferred in her account through R.T.G.S. by the informant and money was also got transferred in the account of applicant no. 2 and applicant no. 1. There was no any agreement with Pratap Chandra. For cheating the informant, forged Adhar Card was also got prepared by the applicant no. 1 to show his own wife Jyoti Devi as w/o Pratap Chandra said to be owner of the land. In this way both the applicants are not innocent and cannot be said to have been implicated falsely and worked as commission agent. It is also urged that applicants are not appearing before the learned Court even after the submission of charge-sheet but avoiding the process and trial as a result process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has also been issued against them.
On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record and without making any further comment and the fact that applicants are not appearing before the learned Court but avoiding from the process of of the Court as a result process under section 82 Cr.P.C. has also been issued. In this way there appears no ground to grant anticipatory bail in favour of these applicants.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is, hereby, rejected.
Order Date :- 22.5.2023 M.S. Ansari