In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a 74-year-old man accused of forgery and cheating in a property dispute case. Justice Pankaj Bhatia allowed the anticipatory bail application of Achchey Lal Jaiswal in connection with an FIR registered against him in Sultanpur district.
Case Background:
The case stems from an FIR (No. 298 of 2023) filed at Kotwali Nagar Police Station in Sultanpur under Sections 120B, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant alleged that Jaiswal, along with others, had forged a will of the complainant’s mother to illegally transfer property to Jaiswal’s son-in-law and daughter.
Key Legal Issues:
1. Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when charge sheet has already been filed
2. Impact of non-disclosure of previous legal proceedings on anticipatory bail application
3. Scope of court’s discretion in granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC
Court’s Decision:
Justice Bhatia granted anticipatory bail to Jaiswal till the conclusion of trial, rejecting arguments by the state against granting relief.
The court made several important observations:
1. On non-disclosure of previous proceedings:
The court held that unlike writ petitions under Article 226, anticipatory bail applications under Section 438 CrPC do not require disclosure of all previous proceedings. Justice Bhatia noted: “The requirements of exercise of powers under Article 226 are on different footing and the exercise of power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised on the same lines.”
2. On granting bail after charge sheet filing:
Referring to Supreme Court judgments, the court clarified that anticipatory bail can be granted even after charge sheet filing. It rejected the state’s reliance on a previous Allahabad HC judgment putting restrictions on post-charge sheet anticipatory bail.
3. On court’s discretion under Section 438 CrPC:
Justice Bhatia emphasized the wide discretion available to courts in granting anticipatory bail, citing the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench judgment in Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi). He observed: “What flows out is that an anticipatory bail could be considered by a Sessions Court or by a High Court irrespective of the nature of the offences unless barred by a statute in the cases it deems fit without any restrictions.”
4. On facts of the present case:
The court noted that the FIR was filed after 8 years of the alleged incident and after an injunction order was confirmed in a related civil case. It also considered the applicant’s advanced age and that he was only an attesting witness to the alleged forged will.
Justice Bhatia concluded: “There is no material to suggest that the applicant is either at a flight risk or in any way can adversely affect the trial, if enlarged on bail, thus, on these grounds the applicant is entitled for the benefit of anticipatory bail till conclusion of the trial.”
Also Read
The anticipatory bail was granted subject to conditions including furnishing personal bonds, not leaving India without court permission, and cooperating with the investigation.
Lawyers:
Jitendra Saksena appeared for the applicant Achchey Lal Jaiswal. The state was represented by Government Advocate V.K. Singh, assisted by Shivendra Shivam Singh Rathore and Vivek Kumar Rai.
Case Details:
Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1422 of 2024
Achchey Lal Jaiswal vs State of U.P. & Anr.
