Vijay Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

Present Application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with the Case Crime No. 322 of 2022, registered at police station Raipur, District Dehradun. Applicant is in judicial custody under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The case of the Prosecution is that one Sikandar Singh was an employee of PBIL Apex Construction Company. The said Company was an associate company of PACL and PGF Company. The properties-in-question were purchased by the PACL and PGF Company in the name of the said Sikandar Singh. Sikandar Singh never executed any Power of Attorney deed in favour of any person to sell the Company’s land. The present applicant and co-accused Ankit Verma and Amit Kumar Singh have illegally sold the lands of the said companies through a fake and forged registered Power of Attorney deed dated 23.04.2019. After enquiry, the First Information Report was lodged by the informant Abul Kalam, Inspector, Special Task Force on 04.08.2022. Charge-sheet has been filed in the present matter.

Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, Advocate, contended that applicant is a registered Power of Attorney holder, executed by the said Sikandar Singh. The sold properties were recorded in the name of Sikandar Singh. The said Power of Attorney deed has not been cancelled till date.

Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, Advocate, further contended that said Power of Attorney deed dated 23.04.2019 is a registered document and there is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed and a registered document, prima facie would be valid in law. Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, Advocate, has submitted that the co-accused of similar role, namely Amit Kumar Singh has been granted bail by this Court. Applicant is a permanent resident of District Dehradun, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. He is in custody since 12.05.2023 and charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

Learned counsel for the State has fairly conceded that the co-accused of similar role has been granted bail by this Court.

Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

The Bail Application is allowed.

Let the applicant- Vijay Kumar be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :-

i) Applicant shall attend the trial court regularly and he will 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 prior permission of the Trial Court.

It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, Prosecution will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.