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
17 paragraphs · 670 wordsMilind Ramesh Phadke, J
This is first bail application under Section 483 of BNSS filed by the applicant for grant of bail.
The applicant has been arrested on 25.12.2025 by Police Station-Cantt., District Guna in connection with Crime No.125/2021, registered in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 420, 419, 467, 468, 471 of IPC.
As per the prosecution case, the complainant, Lilabai D/o Hazari W/o Bhanwarlal, submitted an application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chachauda, District Guna, stating that she is a one-fourth co-owner of agricultural land comprising ten properties admeasuring a total area of 5.424 hectares. It is alleged that an imposter, posing as Lilabai D/o Hazari W/o Lalaram Banjar, fraudulently sold the said land to Punit Aneja by using forged documents, on the basis of which his name was mutated in the revenue records. In relation thereto, Case No. 291A-6/2019-20 was instituted before the Tehsildar Court, Chachauda, and an order was passed on 09.01.2020. The prosecution alleges that the said fraud was committed by the imposter in connivance with the alleged buyer, Jeetu, and the present applicant, who stood as a witness to the forged sale deed. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, an FIR was registered on 01.02.2021, and the applicant was arrested solely on the ground that he had acted as a testifying witness to the said sale agreement.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. The applicant was merely an attesting witness to the alleged sale agreement, which he, in good faith, believed to be genuine and valid, as represented to him at the relevant time. The applicant has neither made any inducement in respect of any property nor has, he prepared, used, or caused to be prepared any forged document with the intent to cheat the complainant or any other person. It is further contended that the petitioner is in jail since 25.12.2025 and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, and continued incarceration of the applicant would amount to pre-trial punishment. On the aforesaid ground, he prayed for grant of bail to the applicant.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the bail application and prayed for its rejection.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations and particularly the role of the applicant that of an attesting witness, coupled with the fact that the trial is not likely to conclude in near future and prolonged pre- trial detention being an anathema to the concept of liberty, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/committal Court for his appearance on the dates given by the concerned Court.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-
The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;
The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
The applicant will not indulge themselves in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
4 . The applicant shall not commit any other offence during pendency of the trial, failing which this bail order shall stand cancelled automatically, without further reference to the Bench;
The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and
The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
Certified copy as per rules.
