Mohammad Sajid vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Alok Kumar Verma, J

The present Application has been filed by the applicant-Mohammad Sajid seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.35 of 2022, registered at Police Station Clement Town, District Dehradun under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The First Anticipatory Bail Application (ABA No.231 of 2022) was dismissed on 18.03.2025 for want of prosecution.

Heard Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the respondent nos.1 and 2.

Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate, submitted that as per the FIR dated 17.03.2022, one Madhu Sudhan Bimbet was the owner of the property-in-question. He died on 19.01.2019. The informant is the real sister of late Madhu Sudhan Bimbet. The co-accused Rajendra Singh fabricated a forged will of late Madhu Sudhan Bimbet. The name of the informant is recorded in the revenue records. The present applicant and six other named accused want to grab the property of the informant’s brother.

Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate, contended that the allegations of the FIR are absolutely false and baseless. Applicant was the Pairokar of Rajendra Singh (co-accused). Several civil litigations are pending before the co-accused Rajendra Singh and the informant. Applicant has no concern with the alleged will. He is not the beneficiary and he is not claiming any right over the property-in-question. Informant has falsely implicated the applicant in the present case only because the present applicant is the Pairokar of the co-accused Rajendra Singh. The disputes between the co-accused Rajendra Singh and the informant are purely civil in nature. This Court granted interim bail to the applicant on 30.09.2022 in the First Anticipatory Bail Application. After the order dated 30.09.2022, applicant could not contact his counsel, therefore, the First Anticipatory Bail Application was dismissed for want of prosecution.

Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate, further submitted that the applicant is not a convicted person. He is a permanent resident of District Dehradun, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding, and, charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

On the other hand, Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, learned Brief Holder, has opposed the anticipatory bail application orally. However, he submitted on instructions that the charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no requirement of custodial interrogation of the applicant.

Personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present Application, filed for anticipatory bail, is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant Mohammad Sajid, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- and two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) Applicant shall attend the trial court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

(ii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of this case;

(iii) Applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the trial court.

It is made clear that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the prosecution agency will be free to move the Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.