Vikrant Chaurasiya vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

Present Application has been filed for grant of Anticipatory Bail under Sections 420, 467 and Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in connection with the First Information Report No. 36 of 2022, registered at police station Rajpur, District Dehradun.

Opposing the present Application, Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General for the State, submitted that the applicant-accused illegally obtained General Power of Attorney dated 14.09.2021 (registered) on his name by impersonating Mr. P.S. Kang by showing that Mr. P.S. Kang is authorised representative of M/s P.G.F. Limited.

On the other hand, Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Advocate, contended that the applicant was the bonafide attorney holder. The Power of Attorney dated 14.09.2021 was a registered document and there is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed and a registered document, prima facie would be valid in law. In support of the said submission, Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Advocate, has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, passed in “Prem Singh and Others Vs. Birbal and Others”, (2006) 5 SCC 353.

Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Advocate, further contended that after lodging the First Information Report, applicant approached to Preet Pal Singh Kang. He (Preet Pal Singh Kang) again showed his identity proofs that he is actual Preet Pal Singh Kang and further he gave an affidavit of declaration stating therein that he is the authorized representative of M/s P.G.F. Limited and the power of attorney executed in favour of the applicant is genuine and valid. In pursuance to the aforesaid declaration, Preet Pal Singh Kang had sent applications to the various authorities claiming himself as an actual Preet Pal Singh Kang. However, the power of attorney was got cancelled by Preet Pal Singh Kang through a registered deed.

Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Advocate, argued that the applicant has not executed any agreement to sell or sale deed rather he is the victim of the case. He is not a previous convict. He is a permanent resident of District Dehradun, therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding.

Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General for the State, has opposed the Anticipatory Bail Application. He contended that the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory supports the case of the First Information Report.

Personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, applicant-Vikrant Chaurasiya is directed to be released on Anticipatory Bail, in the event of his arrest, on furnishing his personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount on the following conditions:-

(i) Applicant shall cooperate with the Investigating Agency and he shall make himself available at the time of interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when requires;

(ii) In case, charge-sheet is filed, applicant shall attend the Trial Court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

(iii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of this case;

(iv) Applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the Trial Court.

It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the prosecution agency will be free to move the Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

Anticipatory Bail Application (No.56 of 2022) stands disposed of accordingly.