Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20741 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3254 of 2024 Applicant :- Karishma Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Kumar Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dadu Ram Shukla (D.R. Shukla ) Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the opposite party - State and Shri D.R. Shukla, learned counsel for the complainant. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant and supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the informant are taken on record. 3. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 0020 of 2022 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471& 120-B, 386 & 506 of I.P.C. and Section 7A of P.C. Act, P.S. S.I.T., District Lucknow. 4. As per the contents of the F.I.R., the persons nominated therein were instrumental in execution of a fabricated sale deed in which the vendor are indicated as Sunil Kumar and Anoop who are said to have executed sale deed in favour of Smt. Kalawati. The narration indicates that marginal witnesses in the said sale deed are Khedu and Satya Narayan. 5. The applicant is not nominated in the F.I.R. and her involvement has been indicated on the basis of investigation wherein she was found to be a marginal witness in the subsequent agreement to sale executed by Smt. Kalawati. 6. It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against her which would be apparent from the fact that she was neither the vendor, the vendee or the beneficiary of the registered sale deed allegedly executed in favour of Smt. Kalawati, mother of the applicant. It is also submitted that the applicant's involvement is in fact indicated only on the basis of her being a marginal witness of a subsequent agreement to sale which, even otherwise, is unregistered and through which no title can devolve. The applicant is under incarceration since 09.12.2023 and her previous criminal history of 8 cases has already been explained. Learned counsel for the applicant has struck parity with co- accused Shivam Yadav, who has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. - 2305 of 2023 on 19.10.2023. 7. Learned counsels for the opposite parties have opposed the bail application with the submission that the applicant being the daughter of Smt. Kalawati was fully aware with regard to the fabrication of earlier registered sale deed in favour of said Smt. Kalawati and, therefore, was fully aware of fabrication with regard to the subsequent agreement to sale. It is submitted that the applicant has a previous criminal history with regard to same sections and therefore, she is not entitled to bail. 8. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, prima facie, it appears that as per the narration made in the F.I.R., the applicant is not named therein. Her involvement is on the basis of her being a marginal witness in the subsequent unregistered agreement to sale. There is no allegation that the applicant was a vendor, vendee or even a beneficiary or marginal witness in the previous sale deed registered in favour of her mother namely Smt. Kalawati. It is settled law that title does not devolve through an agreement to sale. The applicant is under incarceration since 09.12.2023 and her previous criminal history has already been explained. 9. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail. 10. Let applicant - Karishma Singh - involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. Order Date :- 11.4.2025 S. Shivhare Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench