The Allahabad High Court while allowing an anticipatory bail application said that it is settled law of the Court that parity can be claimed for grant of bail and not for its rejection.
A Single Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Anticipatory bail application filed by Smt Vinita Mehrotra.
The anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC at Police Station- Kotwali City, District Bijnor with a prayer to enlarge her on anticipatory bail.
The FIR was instituted by the informant Rakesh Sharma that he and his wife have a property in Civil Lines, Bijnor which has residence, shops and open land surrounded by boundary wall which is being used by them for the last 50 years. The said property was inherited by the informant after a family partition in the year 1974 after an order was taken from the Court. The two persons namely, Mohammed Talib and Shankar Lal, are land mafias of the area and have garnered huge black money out of it. They want to illegally grab his property. The informant had sold a certain part of the said property on 14.11.2022. It is learnt that the said land mafias have got executed ten sale deeds of certain parts of the land on 25.11.2022 in the names of their siblings in collusion with Vinita Mehrotra w/o PK Mehrotra.
The land grabber had got the said sale deeds executed, despite knowing the fact that Smt Vinita Mehrotra (applicant) does not have any title to the said land.
It is further stated in the FIR that the informant had contested several petitions up to the Supreme Court for getting certain shops vacated by filing petitions under the Rent Control Act. The said sale deed have been executed for a consideration of Rs 3,25,00,000,/- although the real value in the open market is much more than the amount shown in the sale deeds.
The Court observe that,
The important factor to be taken into consideration is that when a person executes a document conveying a property describing it as ‘his’ or ‘hers’, there are two possibilities. The first is that he/she, as a bona-fide act, believes that the property actually belongs to him/her. The second is that he/she may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his/her even-though he/she knows that it is not his/her property.
As propounded in Mohd Ibrahim (supra), to fall under the first category of false documents, it is not sufficient that a document has to be made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently.
In the case herein, the applicant has executed the sale deed conveying it to be her’s and has not misrepresented anyone. It is also admitted fact that prior to the institution of the FIR and even the said sale deeds, there were civil suits pending before the Civil Court, Bijnor. Thus, the exception can be drawn in favour of the applicant being a lady of 74 years of age. It is to be noted at the time of arguments in the bail application of co-accused, the facts relating to the applicant were not argued or brought forward as she was not an applicant there.
The argument of the counsel for the informant claiming parity of rejection of bail of co-accused does not hold good as it is settled law of the Court that parity can be claimed for grant of bail and not for its rejection. It is also to be taken into account that one of the very same accused person Shankar Lal has been enlarged on anticipatory bail by the Supreme Court vide its’ order dated 09.11.2023. The case of the applicant is at a better footing to Shankar Lal as she has no criminal antecedents.
The Court said that it is very unfortunate when familial relationships are strained by greed. Open communication and understanding can be key to resolving such issues. Sorry to see that rapacity can create conflicts and damage blood relationships. The FIR and the litigations between the parties is a fallout of depleting family relations due to avidity. The litigation can further complicate the already depleting family dynamics.
“On due consideration to the arguments advanced by the counsel for the applicant, counsel for the informant as well as A.G.A, taking into consideration the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in Mohd Ibrahim (supra) and the fact that the bail application of the co-accused person Shankar Lal has been allowed by the Supreme Court vide its’ order dated 9.11.2023 coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents to her credit, and considering the nature of accusations, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of “Sushila Agrawal Vs State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1″. The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court”, the Court further observed while allowing the bail application.
The Court ordered that,
Let the accused-applicant- Smt Vinita Mehrotra be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) That the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii) That the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
(iii) That the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
(iv) That in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
(v) That the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(vi) That the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
(vii) That in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.