Advocates:
['RAJESHWAR MISHRA', 'G A', '', 'YOGESH KUMAR MISHRA']

Court No. - 75

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL

APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 17359 of 2021

Applicant :- Samreen Pawar

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeshwar Mishra

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Yogesh Kumar Mishra

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

Heard over anticipatory bail application, under Section 438

Cr.P.C., moved by the applicant- Samreen Pawar, in Case Crime

No. 1952 of 2020, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 506,

120-B I.P.C., Police Station- Indrapuram, District- Ghaziabad.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused-

applicant is innocent; he has been falsely implicated in this very

case crime number; co-accused Mahtab, Akhtar and Abdul

Gani, have been granted anticipatory bail by Session Court

itself; applicant had entered in inter religion marriage, owing to

which, this false implication has been made; applicant is ready

to cooperate with the investigation; there is every likelihood of

arrest by the police; hence anticipatory bail application was

moved before court concerned, but it was rejected, hence this

application for anticipatory bail with above prayer.

Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant has

vehemently opposed with this contention that applicant

claiming herself to be power of attorney holder of Sri P.K.

Sarad, had executed an Agreement to Sale for a consideration of

Rs. 1,25,00,000/-, for sale of plot No. D-22 of area 310 square

meters of Sector 22 Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, for which a

consideration of Rs. 18 lacs through NEFT and 65 lacs through

cash was received by applicant, thenafter, deed was not

executed and after inquiry it came to notice that this plot was

not of P.K. Sarad, rather it was allotted by way of lease deed to

Manju Sarad, wife of P.K. Sarad but owing to non payment, this

was forfeited by bank concerned; this was a fraud by

manufacturing forged and fictitious power of attorney as well as

valuable securities and thereby, receiving Rs. 83 lacs, which

was not returned back, rather a threat was extended by

applicant.

Having heard and gone through material placed on record, it is

apparent that transfer of Rs. 18 lacs through NEFT and Rs. 65

lacs through other sources have been complained against

applicant; applicant got manufactured a forged and fictitious

power of attorney and on the basis of it, this Agreement to Sale

was said to be executed.

Considering all those facts and circumstances of the case and

law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of

Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC

Online SC 98, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made

out.

Accordingly, anticipatory bail application is rejected.

Order Date :- 15.12.2021

Kamarjahan