Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 179200 (ALL)

BHANU PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO. AND ANOTHER

NABAIL/1759/2025 · 2025-11-25

Karunesh Singh Pawar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1759 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. 1.The present anticipatory bail application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No.03 of 2025 under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Karnailganj, district Gonda. 2.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the complainant who has filed vakalatnama today in court, which is taken on record, and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 3.It is alleged in the prosecution case that a forged will dated 27.20.3008 of late Ramhit Yadav, father of respondent No.2 has been prepared at the instance of sons of Ramrakh, namely Ramchander, Vishambhar, Ramkailash and Ramkailas. It is also alleged that executor of will passed away on 29.10.2008 and thereafter the forged will was presented for registration by beneficiaries on 28.11.2008 in the office of Sub Registrar, Karnailganj, Gonda which was registered on 30.3.2009. 4.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an Advocate by profession. The applicant as per admitted case of the prosecution is not beneficiary of the will. The first information report has been lodged after delay of more than 17 years without any explanation. The will in question is in the knowledge of respondent No.2 since beginning. Total 10 number of civil and criminal cases are going on Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anuj Dayal, Sumeet Tahilramani Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Santosh Kumar Tripathi Bhanu Prakash Srivastava .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) between the respondent No.2 and the beneficiaries of the will. The respondent No.2 has filed a civil suit No.98 of 2010 in the year 2010 for cancellation of will. The suit is still pending adjudication before the competent court. The applicant is 73 years old. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that the applicant shall cooperate in the investigation. 5.Learned Addl. Government Advocate and complainant's counsel have opposed the prayer made by applicant's counsel. It is submitted that the applicant has a criminal history of 8 other cases of similar nature. It is not a case of false implication. 6.Considering the above aspects of the matter, the fact that the applicant has explained criminal history in para 5 of the supplementary affidavit, the first information report has been registered after delay of ore than 17 years, registration of the will was in the knowledge of respondent No.2 since beginning which is evident from perusal of the civil suit, Annexure No.7 to the bail application, age of the applicant being 73 years, the offences are triable by Magistrate, the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he will cooperate in the ongoing investigation, perusal of the record, as also the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1 and without entering into the merit of the case, it would be appropriate to grant protection to the applicant. 7.In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer/S.H.O. The applicant shall report to the investigating officer within 20 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The investigating officer shall enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail, as directed above. 8.The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witnesses. The applicant shall not leave India sans previous permission of the Court. NABAIL No. 1759 of 2025 2 In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to proceed in accordance with law/ to move application for vacation of this order. 9.The application is allowed accordingly. November 25, 2025 kkb/ NABAIL No. 1759 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench