IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Criminal I Bail Application No.155 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused CRIMINAL SIDE Jagram ……….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand ------- Opposite party Arising out of Case Crime No.181 of 2009, U/s 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC, P.S. Raipur, District Dehradun Dated: March 17, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Ms. Krishi Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State. In brief the prosecution case is that on 18.6.2009, complainant Anurag went to his land and found some persons standing over there and on being enquired, they did not reply. On apprehension of some fraud, on 19.6.2009 the complainant applied for the certified copy of his Khata and then he came to know that one Shyam Singh has got his name mutated over the aforesaid land on 25.3.2009 on the basis of some forged sale deed in his favour. On further enquiry, it was revealed that a fake and fictitious Power of Attorney was prepared on the basis of which the complainant’s land was sold to that Shyam Singh, who further sold this land to one Smt. Ranjana Srivastava and Shivalika Srivastava on a meager price. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has falsely been implicated and he has not been assigned any role in the FIR and the main accused in the offence has yet not been arrested and the applicant has not signed any document in this offence. On the other hand, learned Brief Holder strongly opposed the bail and submitted that the applicant is the main mastermind of whole conspiracy to grab the property of complainant and his nephews and for this purpose he entered into a conspiracy with co-accused and prepared forged documents of Power of Attorney and Sale deeds by producing fake persons before the authorities. He further submitted that the present applicant is the only person who identified the alleged purchaser Shyam Singh in the Bank for opening Shyam Singh’s account as well as his own account and during investigation, it has been revealed that the present applicant also executed a compromise deed wherein he admitted his whole offence and in the statements of Kamal Chaudhary and Pradip Sharma, it has come that the present applicant along with co-accused received Rs.22.00 lacs from these persons. When the applicant found that this whole conspiracy has been disclosed then he issued three cheques in their favour for the amount of Rs.7.00 lacs which have been bounced by the Bank when presented. The I.O. has also collected the account opening forms from the concerned bank having the signature of the applicant in his own name as well as being the introducer of Shyam Singh. He further submitted that when that Shyam Singh was arrested by the police, he disclosed that he had no property in Dehradun nor he knows any such person named Anurag and he is resident of Village Faizpur, P.S. Noorpur, District Bijnor and it was only the present applicant who brought Shyam Singh to Dehradun and by way of allurement for money, Shyam Singh got these forged sale deeds prepared in his name and signed those documents under influence of the applicant Jagram and the money was also received by the present applicant. After considering the above-said facts and circumstances, on hearing learned counsel for the parties, contents of the FIR, perusal of the counter affidavit and other papers available on record, it is not a fit case where the applicant is entitled for bail. The bail application is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. 17.03.2010 Rajeev Dang (Dharam Veer, J.)