Shaukeen vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime No.378 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Bahadarabad, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

According to the FIR, the applicant by forged a gift deed allegedly executed by the informant. According to the FIR, the informant did not execute any gift deed.

Learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that subsequent to lodging of the FIR, the informant had filed a civil suit, in which parties have entered into compromise. The gift deed has been cancelled and subsequently, sale deeds have also been cancelled.

It is argued that post cancellation of the deeds, the informant had executed one sale deed and another gift deed with regard to the same property.

Learned counsel for the informant would submit that the applicant had moved an application for recalling the compromise order which is still pending. He admits that in the civil suit, parties have entered into a compromise and the gift deed has been cancelled and the property has been sold and gifted to some other persons by the informant.

Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

The bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.