The Allahabad High Court has granted conditional bail to former MLA Rameshwar Singh Yadav in the case of forging the signature of a District Magistrate.
A Single Bench of Justice Rajeev Misra passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Rameshwar Singh Yadav.
The application for bail has been filed by applicant-Rameshwar Singh Yadav, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 593 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station-Kotwali City, The application for bail has been filed by applicant-Rameshwar Singh Yadav, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station-Kotwali City, District-Etah during the pendency of trial.
The Court noted that,
Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 20.07.2023, a delayed FIR dated 30.08.2023 was lodged by first informant-Anand Kumar Sharma and was registered as Case under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station-Kotwali City, DistrictEtah. In the aforesaid FIR, the servant of applicant has been nominated as named accused, whereas one unknown person has also been arraigned as an accused.
The gravamen of the allegations made in the FIR is to the effect that a deposit to the tune of Rs 35 lakh made on 20.07.2023 by means of treasury challan contained the forged signature of the then District Magistrate.
During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer inferred the complicity of the applicant as well as another accused Raj Kishore @ Raju (the servant of applicant). On the basis of material collected by the Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that complicity of named accused Raj Kishore @ Raju and the applicant is fully established in the crime in question.
He, accordingly, submitted the police report dated 17.12.2023 in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C, whereby applicant and co-accused Raj Kishore @ Raju have been charge sheeted under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC.
Counsel for the applicant contends that though applicant is not named in the FIR but is a charge sheet accused yet in spite of above, applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. Applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the aforementioned case crime number.
With reference to the material on record, it is urged by the counsel for applicant that it is an undisputed fact that in compliance of the order dated 07.02.2023 passed by the Court in Criminal Misc Bail Application, deposit of a sum of Rs 35 lacs has been made, by means of a treasury challan on 20.07.2023.
Subsequently, the State has come up with a case that signatures of the then District Magistrate on the aforesaid treasury challan were found to be forged. However, co-accused Raj Kishore @ Raju has already been enlarged on bail by the Court, by order dated 04.10.2023.
Counsel for applicant contends that even though co accused has already been enlarged on bail, the case of the applicant is on better footing than aforementioned co-accused. It is an undisputed fact that the applicant was in custody on the date the deposit was made by means of aforementioned treasury challan on 20.07.2023. However, the amount deposited on behalf of applicant by means of aforementioned challan was attached in proceedings under the Gangsters Act. Subsequently, another deposit was made by means of treasury challan dated 07.11.2023.
Counsel for applicant thus contends that since a deposit was made on behalf of applicant, while applicant was in custody, which deposit has not been deposited by the State, it cannot be said that there was any dishonest intention on the part of applicant though out to commit the crime. Once the factum of deposit made on behalf of applicant is not disputed and in view of the fact that applicant was in custody at the time of first deposit as well as the second deposit, the charge alleged against applicant cannot be said to be even prima-facie established against applicant.
There is no evidence up to this stage to establish conspiracy against the applicant either. On the above premise, the counsel for applicant contends that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
It is then submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant has a criminal history of 97 cases but the same has been detailed in the supplementary affidavit. With reference to the supplementary affidavit, the learned counsel for applicant contends that the liberty of applicant has been protected in certain cases by the Apex court itself.
On the cumulative strength of above, he, therefore, contends that liberty of applicant is not liable to be curtailed simply on the ground of criminal history in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Brijmani Devi Vs Pappu Kumar and Another, (2022) 4 SCC 497 and Prabhakar Tewari Vs State of U.P, (2020) 11 SCC 648. Applicant has been in jail since 25.10.2023. As such, he has undergone more than 9 months of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C has already been submitted.
As such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. However, up to this stage, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged on the record necessitating the custodial arrest of the applicant during the pendency of trial.
On the above premise, he, therefore, submits that the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial.
Per contra, the Additional Advocate General has opposed the prayer for bail. He submitted that since the applicant is a charge-sheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by the Court.
“Having heard, the counsel for the applicant, the Additional Advocate General for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made, complicity of accused and coupled with the fact that applicant was required to deposit a sum of Rs 35 lacs with the State Government through the District Magistrate, under order of the Court, which deposit has already been made, the deposit made by applicant is not disputed, the dispute is that the signature of the then District Magistrate is forged and fictitious, admittedly, applicant was in custody on the date of first deposit i.e on 20.07.2023, therefore, prima-facie, it cannot be inferred that applicant has forged or fabricated a false signature, up to this stage, the A.G.A could not point out any such material on record to establish conspiracy against applicant, the explained criminal history of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, the police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C has already been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized, yet in spite of above, the Additional Advocate General could not point out any such incriminating circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the Additional Advocate General in opposition to the application for bail, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail,” the Court observed while allowing the bail application.
The Court ordered that let the applicant-Rameshwar Singh Yadav, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.