Back
2024 Supreme(All) 1656
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MAYANK KUMAR JAIN, J.
Farook – Applicant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another - Opposite Parties
Criminal MISC. Bail Cancellation Application No. 69 Of 2023
Decided On : 26-09-2024
For the Applicant : Akash Dwivedi, Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Sanjay Shukla.
For the Opposite Parties : Ambikesh Kumar Sharma, G.A., Shashi Kant Shukla.
IMPORTANT POINT
Bail can be cancelled if the accused misuses the liberty granted or misrepresents facts in the bail application.
Headnote:
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439(2) - Bail Cancellation - The applicant seeks cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party for misusing liberty and threatening the informant post-bail. The court emphasized that bail can be cancelled if the accused misuses the liberty granted. (Paras 19, 40, 42)
(B) Misrepresentation - The opposite party misrepresented his criminal history in the bail application, which was a significant factor in the court's decision to cancel bail. (Paras 30, 41)
Facts of the case:
The informant alleged that the opposite party defrauded him of Rs.31,50,000/- in a property transaction and failed to execute sale deeds despite receiving payment. The opposite party was granted bail but subsequently threatened the informant.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the opposite party had misused bail, threatened witnesses, and concealed his criminal history, leading to the cancellation of bail.
Issues: The main issues were the misuse of bail and the misrepresentation of criminal history by the opposite party.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that bail can be cancelled if the accused misuses the liberty granted, and misrepresentation in the bail application is a valid ground for cancellation.
Result: Bail granted to the opposite party is cancelled.
JUDGMENT :
(Mayank Kumar Jain, J.)
1. Heard Sri Rajeev Lochan Shukla, learned Counsel for the applicant/ informant, Sri Shashikant Shukla, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.2/accused and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The applicant Farook has filed the present Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application seeking cancellation of bail granted to opposite party no.2 namely Zakir Ali @ Hazi Zakir (hereinafter referred to as the opposite party) vide order dated 21.09.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Moradabad in Second Bail Application No.3413 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 1166 of 2020, under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 of IPC relating to Police Station Civil Line, District Moradabad.
3. It would be pertinent to summarise the case of the prosecution, unfolded in the First Information Report. The applicant Farook (hereinafter referred to as the informant) lodged a First Information Report against the opposite party and one Vimal with the following avertments that:
3.1 The opposite party entered into an agreement with the informant for sale of three flats/houses ad-measuring 52-59 square meter situated at Sonakpur, Tehsil and District Moradabad @ Rs.8 lakhs per flat. Rs.4,40,000/- were transferred through RTGS to the bank account of the opposite party on 03.10.2019. Two cheques amounting to Rs.4,50,000 was given later which were duly encashed. Cash was also paid to the opposite party on different dates. In all, Rs.31,50,000/- was paid by the informant to the opposite party.
3.2 The informant repeatedly requested the opposite party to execute a sale deed. Based on the directions of the opposite party, he prepared three sale deeds. The opposite party signed and affixed his thumb impression only on one sale deed and said that remaining sale deeds would be signed at the registry office. The informant waited at the registry office but the opposite party did not turn up.
3.3 Thereafter, the informant made regular requests with the opposite party to execute the sale deeds. The opposite party executed a document promising to return the entire amount of Rs. 31,50,000/- to the informant by 27.03.2020 but he failed to return the money.
3.4 The opposite party gave two cheques of Rs.15,00,000/- and 16,50,000/- respectively. These cheques were presented before the bank for payment but were dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of the opposite party. When the informant informed the opposite party about this, he promised to execute sale deed in his favour in the near future.
3.5 Upon inspection of relevant records in the registry office in relation to the disputed property, the informant came to know that the opposite party had already executed a registered agreement for sale on 07.11.2019 in favour of Amar Pal and Prem Pal, the real brothers of co-accused, Vimal, much before the transaction with the informant. When the informant confronted the opposite party and asked to return his money, he hurled abuses and threatened to life. Kamal Ahmad and Farjand were the witnesses before whom the money was paid to the opposite party. The opposite party and co-accused Vimal duped the informant for a huge amount of Rs.31,50,000/-.
4. Sri Rajeev Lochan Shukla, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submitted that even after receiving Rs.31,50,000/- from the informant, the opposite party neither executed a sale deed of the flats nor returned the money to the informant. The opposite party committed fraud and cheated the informant.
5. He submitted that to evade his arrest and to avoid his appearance in the trial and with malafide intentions, the opposite party filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 11964/2020. False information was given to this Court that parties were at advanced stage of arriving at a compromise. Based on this information, the matter was adjourned. Since negotiations for arriving at compromise never took place, the said petition was dismissed on 25.11.2020. Thereafter, he filed a Crimi
