Ayodhya Singh vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Singh, J.—Heard Sri S. D. Yadav, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U. P., Sri Dileep Kumar, Sri Rajeev Gupta and Sri Yogendra Yadav, learned Counsel for the complainant.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant and his daughter Smt. Madhu Singh are named in the F.I.R. as accused. It is alleged that in the back portion of the house of the first informant there was some servant quarters. In the first floor of one quarter the applicant and his daughter were living because the first informant served at the firm of the first informant, due to their suspected activities and quarrelsome nature, the applicants were asked to vacate the room but the applicant denied saying that he was the owner of that room. It was surprising for the first informant then he inquired into the matter and came to know that Smt. Savitri Bagla, Buwa of the first informant, who died in the year 1987, the applicant prepared a forged Will deed in her name and wanted to grab the property on the basis of that forged Will, a civil suit has already been filed, the property in dispute was attached to the Income Tax Department since 1967 but the applicant has not given any information to Income Tax Department, original signature of Smt. Savitri are available on the record in the office of Registrar of the company however, the document of endorsement etc. signature were sent to the Hand Writing Expert and according to the Hand Writing Expert also the signature were forged and the alleged Will deed was forged. The allegation made against the applicant is false and baseless, the applicant has not prepared any forged sale deed in fact it was executed by Smt. Savitri and on the basis of that Will deed civil suit has been filed, the lawful remedy is available in civil court and the civil court will decide the genuineness of the Will deed at this stage it cannot be said that the Will deed was forged. That applicant is innocent and he is in jail since 31.5.2008.

In reply to the above contention it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. and the learned Counsel for the complainant that in the present case forgery has been committed by the applicant to grab the property of the buwa of first informant. According to the Hand Writing Expert report the signature of the applicant on the alleged Will deed was forged and for the purpose of grabbing the property and to linger on the proceedings civil suit has been filed by the applicant on the basis of the forged Will deed. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he may tamper with the evidence.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and the learned Counsel for the complainant, gravity of the offence and period of detention, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is refused.

Accordingly this application is rejected.