Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(All) 953

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
Rakesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 37420 of 2020
Decided On : 19-09-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Pradeep Singh, Anjani Kumar Rai, Manu Pathak.
For the Respondents: Nityanand Srivastava, Pramod Kumar Srivastava.

The judgment emphasized the importance of considering the factual background and the distinction between civil and criminal disputes in determining the applicability of legal precedents.

Headnote:
Bail Application - Criminal Law - Sections 419, 420, 466, 468, 471 I.P.C. - The court discussed the legal provisions related to bail, the application of precedents, and the distinction between civil and criminal disputes.
Fact of the Case:

The applicant filed a bail application in a case involving allegations of fabricating documents related to inheritance. The informant's mother filed a complaint alleging the fabrication of a will and other documents to establish her parentage.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the dispute was essentially of a civil nature and the offenses alleged were triable by the Magistrate. It also noted that the informant had filed a civil suit seeking cancellation of the registered will, which was pending before the Court of Civil Judge.
Issues: The key issue was whether the applicant should be granted bail considering the nature of the dispute and the criminal history of the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principles related to bail, the application of precedents, and the distinction between civil and criminal disputes to reach its decision.
Final Decision: The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was granted bail with specific conditions.

JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

1. Heard Sri Anjani Kumar Rai Advocate, the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava Advocate, the learned Counsel for the informant and perused the record.

2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 721 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 466, 468, 471 I.P.C. Police Station Saini, District Kaushambi.

3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed on 18-12-2018 by the informant Kuldeep @ Shivam Tiwari against five named accused persons, including the applicant, alleging that the informant's mother Raju Devi D/o Late Shiv Sewak is the genuine legal heir of Late Shiv Sewak. The accused persons have fabricated an unregistered will of Late Shiv Sewak and they have also fabricated copies of Parivar Register and School Leaving Certificate to establish that the applicant's mother was daughter of Surajbali S/o Vishwanath.

4. In paragraph 7 of the affidavit it has been stated that prior to lodging the instant F.I.R. the informant's mother Raju Devi had filed a Complaint Case No. 5041 of 2017 (Smt. Raju Devi vs. Dayasanker and Others), under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Saini, District Kaushambi in which the applicant has been granted bail by means of an order dated 17-05-2019, copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the affidavit.

5. The informant Kuldeep lodged another F.I.R. dated 24-10-2019 against the four accused persons, including the applicant, by way of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was registered as Case Crime No. 92 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and P.S. Kadadham, District Kaushambi, in which the applicant has been granted bail by means of an order dated 08-09-2020, a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure No. 6 to the affidavit.

6. The applicant contends that the informant's mother is daughter of one Surajbali, resident of Saurai Alipur Bhadar, District Fatehpur and she is not daughter of Late Shiv Sewak son of Kedar Nath, resident of Saurai Bujurg, Kaushambi. To support this contention, a copy of a registered will dated 23-05-1990 executed by Late Shiv Sewak has been annexed as Annexure no. SRA-5 to the 5th Supplementary rejoinder affidavit wherein the testator had stated that he had no son or daughter.

7. Per contra, the informant claims that his mother Raju Devi is daughter of Late Shiv Sewak son of Kedarnath. The learned counsel for the informant has stated that the informant has filed a Suit No. 843 of 2022 in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) Kaushambi seeking cancellation of the aforesaid registered will dated 23-05-1990 executed by late Shiv Sewak.

8. The question whether Shiv Sewak had any son or daughter or not or whether the informant's mother Smt. Raju Devi is in fact daughter of Shiv Sewak or she is daughter of Surajbali, is a question which is yet to be determined by the competent Court after both the parties have had an opportunities to lead evidence in support of their respective contentions.

9. It has been averred in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application that the applicant is an innocent person, he has been falsely implicated in the case and he is in jail since 20-04-2020. It has also been stated that the co-accused Sarvnam Tiwari has already been released on bail by means of an order dated 10-12-2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45861 of 2021.

10. In Para 18 of the affidavit the applicant's criminal history of 14 cases has been disclosed, in all of which the applicant has been granted bail.

11. Sri. Pramod Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and he has submitted that keeping in view the applicant's long criminal history, he should not be released on bail. He has further submitted that the applicant is alre