ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHANDAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the anticipatory bail application, applicant seeks anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No.826 of 2019, Manohar Lal vs. Satyapal and others, under Ss. 323, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 120B IPC, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/6th Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) Dehradun, District Dehradun.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that respondent nos. 2 and 3 filed an application under Sec. 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) alleging that the present applicant, along with two other individuals, committed fraud in relation to immovable property located at Khasra Nos. 2163 and 2164 in Raipur, Dehradun. It is alleged that on 6/5/2013, the accused parties executed and registered a sale deed by forging the identity of co-accused Kishan Lal. The purpose of this alleged impersonation was to illegally transfer ownership of the said property and thereby earn illicit profit.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant criminal proceedings. It is contended that the applicant was merely a witness to the alleged sale deed dtd. 6/5/2013, and not a party to the execution or registration of the same. Furthermore, it is argued that the entire dispute is essentially of a civil nature, pertaining to property rights and ownership, which has been maliciously given a criminal colour to harass the applicant. He also submits that no cogent evidence is available on record to substantiate the allegations of forgery or impersonation against the applicant, and hence, the invocation of criminal law in this matter is misuse of the legal process.