Anticipatory bail application rejected by Single Judge as no real threat of arrest shown; accused alleging land fraud deemed not entitled to extraordinary relief without extraordinary circumstances.
Application rejected with direction to lower court to dispose expeditiously of regular bail application upon surrender.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4963 of 2021 Applicant :- Rajendra Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nanhe Lal Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vimlendu Tripathi
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel appearing on behalf of informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicants Rajendra Singh and Ajay Pal in Case Crime No. 70 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 352, 504 I.P.C., P.S.- Kotwali Lalitpur, District - Lalitpur.
The first information report was lodged by Suresh Chandra Pandey against the accused-applicants on 21.01.2021 in respect of the incident taking place w.e.f. 29.12.2020 to 02.01.2021 and the allegation is that the accused persons are not the owner of plot no. 415/2 as they have already sole the same to the informant side. The accused-applicants are further selling the same land in order to cheat the informant whereas the accused persons fully known that no land is left for selling in Khata No. 418. The accused persons have deliberately manipulated the entry by playing deception showing an order which was not passed in respect of Khata No. 418. The informant is the owner of the disputed plot and by committing deception and cheating, the accused-applicants have sold the land to other persons. The said deed is forced and on the basis of the said sale deed, they want to forcefully dispossess the informant. The accused persons are threatening with dire consequences and they have also committed maar-peet with the informant side, therefore, the first information report has been lodged.
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that it is correct that the bail applications of purchaser and marginal witnesses of the sale deed have already been rejected by the coordinate Bench but that was rejected for the reason that there is stipulation in the sale deed. In the sale deed, the entire responsibility will be of the vendor, vendee and marginal witnesses. Submission is that it is a false case and it pertains to a civil dispute and the applicants are entitled for anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that applicants have no criminal history and applicants are prepared to furnish sureties and
bonds, there is no possibility of their either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the evidence.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and have submitted that it is a pure case of land grabbing and committing fraud and forgery by selling the land to which the applicants are not entitled as the land was already sold much earlier in favour of the informant. The anticipatory bail application of purchaser and marginal witnesses have already been rejected. The applicants are free to seek the regular bail before the appropriate forum.
Considering the submissions of both the sides. It is relevant to mention that the anticipatory bail applications of purchaser and marginal witnesses have already been rejected as such accusation against the applicants is more serious and they are seller of the said land by committing fraud and forgery.
It is pertinent to mention that the anticipatory bail is not a substitute of a regular bail and for it, some extraordinary circumstances are required in comparison to regular bail. There should be some special reason for taking recourse of the provisions of anticipatory bail. There must also be a threat of arrest of the accused.The first information report has been lodged on 21.01.2021 and there is nothing on record to show that any serious efforts have been made by the police to arrest the applicants. The applicants have not been able to show any real threat of arrest or any extraordinary circumstances, as such, I do not find any ground for giving benefit of anticipatory bail, hence the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicants is rejected .
A direction is, however, given to the court below that in case, applicants surrender and give bail application, the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously and preferably on the same day in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 16.8.2021 sailesh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether exceptional circumstances or real threat of arrest exist to grant anticipatory bail in a case alleging land fraud.
Whether the allegation being more serious than in previously rejected bail applications warrants anticipatory bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajendra Singh
Ajay Pal
State of U.P.
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
