Vikrant Chaurasiya 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.

As per the case of prosecution, 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 said Company in the name of Sikandar Singh. Co-accused Amit Kumar Singh, Ankit Verma and Vijay Kumar have illegally sold the lands of the said companies through a fake and forged registered Power of Attorney dated 23.04.2019. However, Sikandar Singh had never executed any Power of Attorney to any person to sell the Company’s land. The present applicant is a witness of the said registered Power of Attorney 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. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. The present applicant is in judicial custody under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Heard Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs. Manisha Rana Singh, learned A.G.A for the State.

Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate, contended that the sold properties-in-question did not belong to the said Company. Sikandar Singh was the recorded owner of the said properties. He had executed a registered Power of Attorney deed in favour of Ankit Verma, Vijay Kumar and Amit Kumar Singh. Applicant was a witness of the said registered Power of Attorney deed. Power of Attorney 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. Co- accused Amit Kumar Singh has been granted bail by this Court. Applicant has no criminal history. He is not a previous convict. He is a permanent resident of District Dehradun, therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding. Charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence, and, the applicant is in custody since 02.03.2023.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, has opposed the Bail Application. However, she has conceded that the properties-in-question were recorded in the name of Sikandar Singh, and, the co-accused 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- Vikrant Chaurasiya 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 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 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.