High CourtsSingle Bench

Kaushal Bhardwaj vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 22 March 2022 · Citation: (2022) 03 CHH CK 0054

HON’BLE JUDGES
Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 120B, 467, 468, 471
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case (Anticipatory Bail) No. 1417 Of 2021
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

12 paragraphs · 441 words
1.

Heard.

2.

This is an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.21/2020 registered at Police Station Kharsiya, Civil and Revenue District Raigarh (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B, 471/34 of the IPC.

3.

The prosecution case is that complainant Chandra Kumar Baghel has made a written complaint based on the finding of the Civil Court that the 'will' was not valid and therefore, the sale-deed was also challenged, as forged. The FIR has been lodged on the allegation that the applicants and other accused persons have prepared the forged documents to sell the land, on which, the offence has been registered.

4.

Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. The main allegation is against Khemram (father-in-law of applicant Kaushal Bhardwaj and father of applicant Smt. Laxmin Bhardwaj), who has died, and his wife Lalita Bai, who has also died.

5.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are only the attesting witnesses on the sale-deed and they have not prepared any forged documents. The matter is of civil nature and the FIR has been lodged belatedly. Learned counsel for the applicants, therefore, prays that the benefit of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. may be extended to the applicants.

6.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application.

7.

Having considered the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the nature of allegations and further considering that the present applicants are stated to be only attesting witnesses and after finding of the Civil Court, the FIR has been lodged, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to the applicants.

8.

Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer with the following conditions :-

(i) they shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required;

(ii) they shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him for disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer.

(iii) they shall not influence the witnesses during pendency of the trial.

Certified copy as per rules.