Sorry To See That Rapacity Can Create Conflicts & Damage Blood Relationships: Allahabad HC Grants Anticipatory Bail To 74 Year Old Lady
|The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to a 74-year-old woman and stated that it was sorry to see that “rapacity can create conflicts and damage blood relationships.”
The applicant sought anticipatory bail after an FIR was instituted against her under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC.
The complainant had alleged that two land mafias had colluded with the applicant and executed ten sale deeds for parts of the complainant’s property, despite the applicant lacking title to the land. The complainant had claimed that the property was inherited by him after a family partition in 1974 and a part of it was sold. The sale deeds were executed for a small consideration, although the actual market value was allegedly much higher.
A Single Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal observed, “It is very unfortunate when familial relationships are strained by greed. Open communication and understanding can be key to resolving such issues. Sorry to see that rapacity can create conflicts and damage blood relationships. The FIR and the litigations between the parties is a fallout of depleting family relations due to avidity. The litigation can further complicate the already depleting family dynamics.."
Advocate Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh represented the petitioner, while G.A. Amit Daga appeared for the respondents.
The applicant had claimed that the disputed property was initially inherited by the applicant's father and she subsequently contested in a collusive suit filed by the complainant, who allegedly obtained a decree without the applicant's knowledge.
The applicant argued that she was unaware of the said decree, and later initiated legal proceedings for partition of the property. She also filed suits to challenge a purported forged will and the collusive decree. The applicant asserted that she had acted in good faith and was unaware of the alleged fraud perpetrated by the complainant.
The Court held that when a person executes a document conveying a property as their own, two possibilities may arise: either they as a bona-fide act believe it to be theirs, or they dishonestly/ fraudulently claim ownership.
The Court explained that the applicant had executed a sale deed without misrepresenting anyone. The Court considered the age of the applicant and the pending civil suits and stated that an "exception can be drawn."
The Court also noted the lack of criminal antecedents against the applicant and granted her anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the bail application.
Cause Title: Smt. Vinita Mehrotra v. State of U.P. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:32810)
Appearance:
Applicant: Advocate Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh
Opposite Party: G.A. Amit Daga and AGA Sunil Kumar