High CourtsSingle Bench

Balbir Singh And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 16 October 2024 · Citation: (2024) 10 UK CK 0054

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravindra Maithani, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 406, 504, 506
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 685 Of 2024
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

15 paragraphs · 435 words

Ravindra Maithani, J

1.

Delay in filing counter affidavit is condoned. Counter Affidavit is taken on record. Delay Condonation Application IA No.1 of 2024 stands disposed of, accordingly.

2.

Applicants Balbir Singh and Vivek seek anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0236 of 2024, under Sections 406, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Vikasnagar, District Dehradun.

3.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4.

According to the FIR, the applicant no.1 executed an agreement to sale with the informant and took some money, but he did not execute the sale deed. The FIR records that the property had some maintenance issues also, which were not resolved by the applicant no.1. When the informant got the repair done, the FIR records that the applicant no.1 took possession of the property.

5.

Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that, in fact, Ankush has wrongly been named in the FIR. The son of the applicant no.1, Balbir Singh, is the applicant no.2, Vivek; the dispute is purely civil in nature; after agreement to sale, the informant never came forward for executing the sale deed, for which a notice was given by the applicant no.1 to the informant. He would refer to the notices issued by the applicant no.1 and the reply received by him from the informant.

6.

Learned State Counsel admits that the applicant no.2, Vivek, is named as Ankush in the FIR. He would submit that despite agreement to sale, the applicant no.1 did not execute the sale deed.

7.

Having considered, this Court is of the view that this is a case, in which the applicants should be granted anticipatory bail. The instant anticipatory bail application deserves to be allowed.

8.

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

9.

In the eventuality of arrest, the applicants shall be enlarged on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, each in the like amount, by each one of them, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (“AO”). In addition to it, the applicants shall also comply with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicants shall co-operate with the investigation.

(ii) The applicants shall not approach any witness in any manner, whatsoever.

(iii) The applicants shall not leave the country without prior permission of the court concerned.

(iv) The applicants shall deposit their passports with the AO. The passports may only be returned by the order of the court concerned. In case the applicants do not have passport, they shall give an undertaking to that effect to the AO.

(v) The applicants shall also give an undertaking on (i), (ii) & (iii) above.