Mathuri Lal @ T.T. Gautam vs State of Uttarakhand

Dharam Veer, J.—Heard Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Additional Government Advocate for the State and also perused the record.

In brief the prosecution case is that complainant Smt. Harpyari lodged FIR stating therein that in Village Firozpur Manpur Kashipur, 100 acres agricultural land belonging to Forest Department was given on lease to 46 persons, who are working over the said lands. The applicant along with his wife used to cause physical, mental and financial loss to the villagers by preparing the forged documents. The husband of complainant had expired about two years, for which Rs. 30,000/- were sanctioned by the government, however the accused persons got the said amount withdrawn by opening a forged account in Kashipur Postoffice. Similarly, the accused also usurped Rs. 75,000/- belonging to one Munii Devi, on the expiry of her husband Om Prakash. Further, the applicant and co-accused used to usurp 2.20 acres of land belonging to complainant�s husband. When the complainant enquired about the same from the accused, they threatened to her life and also abused her.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that he has been falsely implicated. on the contrary, learned Addl. GA submitted that the applicant/accused along with his wife used to cause physical, mental and financial loss to the poor villagers by preparing the forged documents. He further submitted that the complainant was granted Rs. 30,000/- by the Government, which the applicant/accused had usurped by opening a forged account in the post office. He further submitted that the accused had also usurped Rs. 75,000/- which were granted to one Munni Devi. Besides the applicant/accused is also having a long criminal history which is as follows:

FIR No. 734/2008 u/s 420/467/468 IPC

FIR No. 683/07 u/s 3/4 of Gunda Act

FIR No.46/2007 u/s 110 Code of Criminal Procedure.

FIR No. 5610/06 u/s 323/324 IPC

FIR No. 181/2004 u/s 420 IPC

FIR No. 1419/04 u/s 406/420/506 IPC

FIR No. 491/03 u/s 420/467/468 IPC

After seeing the criminal history of the applicant, it reveals that besides the present case, already other four cases relating to Cheating are pending against the applicant, which reveals that the applicant is a habitual offender of committing the same type of offences again and again and even in the present case also, prima facie cheating of Rs. 1.05 lacs appears to be committed by the present applicant.

After considering the above-said facts and circumstances, on hearing learned Counsel for the parties, contents of the FIR and other papers available on record as well as considering the criminal history of the applicant which reveals that the applicant is a habitual criminal for committing the same type of offences, it is not a fit case where the applicant is entitled for bail.

Bail application is rejected accordingly. Rejected.