Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:120 Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4274 of 2024 Applicant :- Sangita Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Katyayan Mishra,Ankur Kumar Panday,Brij Bhushan Singh,Mohd. Rafi Khan,Pranjal Apurva,Rahul Srivastava,Sandeep Kumar Mishra,Subham Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Diwakar Pratap Pandey Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J. 1. Heard Ms. Anjali Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri Ankur Kumar Panday, learned counsel for the accused- applicant, Shri Diwakar Pratap Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the complainant/informant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Sangita for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 705 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Ambedkar Nagar, during trial. 3. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. Though the allegations have been levelled that the applicant has impersonated the real owner of the land and has executed a sale deed in favour of the informant by impersonating real owner but the case of the prosecution, as is being canvassed, is full of suspicion as Rs. 40 lacs in cash are stated to have been given to the applicant and other co-accused persons. However, no source has been disclosed either in the F.I.R. or in the statement of the informant and other prosecution witnesses pertaining to the fact as to from where this huge amount of Rs. 40 lacs was taken by the informant which was ultimately stated to have been paid to the applicant and other co-accused persons. 4. It is further submitted that applicant is a rustic village lady and is not conversant with the nicities of the procedural aspect of the registration of any document and he has herself been defrauded by the other accused persons as admittedly only Rs. 1 lac is stated to have been taken by her. 5. It is next submitted that the whole transaction is shown to have been conducted in cash against the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India and, therefore, the whole prosecution story is under the shadow of doubt and suspicion. Applicant is lady and is languishing in jail in this case since 08.01.2024 without any criminal antecedents and other co-accused persons of the crime, namely, Brijesh Kumar, Jai Prakash Pandey @ Bindu Pandey, Akash Kumar Gupta, Hariram Verma and Mohammad Alim have been granted bail by this Court, vide orders dated 19.03.2024, 18.03.2024, 14.03.2024, 14.03.2024 and 28.03.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 3181 of 2024, 2710 of 2024, 2896 of 2024, 2897 of 2024 and 2661 of 2024, respectively. There is no apprehension that after being released on bail she may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty. 6. Learned A.G.A. as well as Shri Diwakar Pratap Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the complainant/informant, vehemently opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that the case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of the other co-accused persons who have already been granted bail and she is the person who had executed a sale deed impersonating real owner Geeta Devi and, therefore, she is not entitled to be released on bail. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that the allegations against the applicant are in terms that she has executed a sale deed in favour of the informant of a property which was owned by one Geeta Devi and others. It is stated that she has impersonated Geeta Devi while executing the sale deed. The defence of the applicant appears to be that transaction of Rs. 40 lacs in cash is stated to have been done and no source of getting this 40 lacs by the informant has been disclosed either in the F.I.R. or in the statement of the prosecution witnesses. Applicant is a lady and is languishing in jail in this case since 08.01.2024 without any criminal antecedents and all other co-accused persons of the alleged crime, namely, Brijesh Kumar, Jai Prakash Pandey @ Bindu Pandey, Akash Kumar Gupta, Hariram Verma and Mohammad Alim have been granted bail by this Bench and the presence of the applicant may be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions. 8. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. Thus, the bail application is allowed. 9. Let the accused/applicant- Sangita involved in above- mentioned case, be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial. (ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 10. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted. 11. Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 2.1.2025 Praveen Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench