Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Ramesh Chandra (Area Lekhpal Husepur Jageer) seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0024 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, P.S. Rampura, District Jalaun.

3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further submitted that due to inadvertent mistake and on the basis of statement of villagers wrong entry was made by the present applicant to the effect that Arvind Singh has share in the property in question but however subsequently applicant came to know that the said Arvind Singh has no share in the said property, he made a statement before the Tehsildar and on the basis of the same, a mutation order was passed and the earlier order was stayed and the name of the informant Neelam Singh was mutated in place of Arvind Singh. Applicant has no criminal history. The investigation of the case is going-on and charge-sheet has not been filed. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

7. From the perusal of the record it reveals that on the basis of wrong entry made by the present applicant, who was working as Lekhpal, name of Arvind Singh was mutated on the ancestral property. F.I.R. was lodged and investigation started, which is going on.

8. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.