Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 193794 (ALL)

BUDDH PRAKASH SHARMA v. STATE OF U.P.

BAIL/3820/2025 · 2025-10-27

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3820 of 2025 Court No. - 70 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Smt. Sarika Tulsiyan, the informant (in person), learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record. 2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Buddh Prakash Sharma with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.859 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Nandgram, District Ghazaibad, during pendency of trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that accused-applicant Buddh Prakash Sharma is not named in the first information report. No specific/separate role has been assigned in the F.I.R. to the applicant. Co- accused Sanjeev Agarwal, Aditya Bhushan Gupta and employees of the bank are named in the F.I.R. Role and involvement of the accused applicant is only to create forged aadhar card etc. He is not the beneficiary of so called fraud transaction. He further submitted that co-accused Ankit Phogat has already been enlarged on bail by the court below and co-accused Sanjeev Agarwal has been granted anticipatory bail by the court below. 4. It has been stated by the informant (in person) and learned A.G.A. that forged sale deed was executed by the accused applicant in the name of informant Sarika Tulsiyan and her husband Tarun Tulsiyan. Accused applicant represented himself as Tarun Tulsiyan by way of forged document and with the help of Yashodhara Sarika Tulsiyan. He executed sale deed. The buyer/co-accused Sanjeev Agarwal borrowed the loan of Rs.69 lac from Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amit Daga, Arvind Mishra, Mohit Kumar Tiwari, Parvish Kumar, Prateek Pandey, Yogendra Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Buddh Prakash Sharma .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Hinduja Housing Finance Company and the above amount was sent in the account of imposter Tarun Tulsiyan (accused applicant). Thus, at this stage, it appears that accused applicant is real beneficiary of taking Rs.69 lac and executing the sale deed of complainant and her husband by means of executing forged sale deed with the help of Yashodhara Sarika Tulsiyan. 5. The accused applicant changes in the name of aadhar card and other documents along with help of other accused persons and opened the bank account and misappropriated the amount which has been received from the named accused Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal. Thus involvement/role of the accused applicant is quite different from other co-accused persons. Actually the named accused Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal is the victim of the so called forged activity. The accused applicant executed the sale deed of the informant as her husband as imposter. Aadhar card relating to cell phone no.8006286367 has been recorded in C.D. number 7 dated 05.10.2022 it means accused applicant impersonated as husband of the informant and named himself Tarun Tulsiyan used the informant's property and he along with other co-accused persons mortgaged the informant's property fraudulently. The accused applicant is habitual offender committing offence of forgery. The voter ID number CNR2077618 used by the applicant to impersonate himself as husband of the informant, when verified from the official website of Election Commission of India is found to be the voter I.D. card of one Isha Jain, wife of co-accused Pushpendra Jain. Upon application of the informant the forged aadhar card was deactivated by the concerned authority. 6. After perusal of the relevant records in the light of arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, the informant and learned A.G.A. and considering the facts and circumstances of the case in totality and looking to seriousness, severity of punishment and gravity of offence, evidence, specific role, involvement and complicity of the accused, I do not find it is a fit case for bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant Buddh Prakash Sharma involved in the aforesaid case crime, is hereby rejected October 28, 2025 Asha BAIL No. 3820 of 2025 2 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad