High CourtsSingle Bench

Vyankat Pundir And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 31 October 2023 · Citation: (2023) 10 UK CK 0133

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 · Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 21
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 980 Of 2023
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 474 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

Present Application has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of Anticipatory Bail under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in connection with the Case Crime No.444 of 2022, registered at police station Vikasnagar, District Dehradun.

2.

An FIR was lodged by the informant-Mukhtar Ahmed on 18.11.2022 with the allegations that the co-accused persons executed a sale deed dated 27.05.2022 in favour of the present applicants by stating that they are the owner of the land-in-question, whereas the father of the informant is the owner and in possession over the land-in-question.

3.

Mr. Pawan Mishra, Advocate, contended that when the sellers, co-accused persons, came to know that the sale deed dated 27.05.2022 was wrongly executed in favour of the present applicants, then they filed an Original Suit No.141 of 2022 before the Court of Civil Judge, Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun seeking the relief of cancellation of the said sale deed dated 27.05.2022. The said suit was decided with the consent of the parties and the sale deed dated 27.05.2022 was cancelled and the Registrar concerned was informed accordingly. Applicants are permanent resident of District Dehradun, therefore, there is no likelihood of their absconding, and, they have no criminal antecedents.

4.

Mr. M.A. Khan, learned A.G.A., has opposed the Anticipatory Bail Application orally. However, he fairly conceded that the said sale deed dated 27.05.2022 has been cancelled by the competent Court and the applicants have no criminal antecedents.

5.

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.

6.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, applicants- Vyankat Pundir and Tejoraj Patwal are directed to be released on Anticipatory Bail, in the event of their arrest, on furnishing their personal bond of Rs. 30,000/-and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount on the following conditions:-

(i) Applicants shall cooperate with the Investigating Agency and they shall make themselves available at the time of interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required;

(ii) In case, charge-sheet is filed, applicants shall attend the Trial court regularly and they shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

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

(iv) Applicants shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the Trial Court.

7.

It is clarified that if the applicants misuse or violate any of the condition, imposed upon them, the concerned authority will be free to move the Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

8.

Anticipatory Bail Application (No.980 of 2023) stands disposed of accordingly.