Anil Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:79426

Court No. - 29

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1546 of 2024 Applicant :- Anil Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajat Pratap Singh,Brijesh Kumar Singh,Madhukar Raman Yadav,Raghvendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dadu Ram Shukla (D.R. Shukla ),Manoj Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Shri B.K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Vinod Kumar Shahi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Puneet Kumar Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Dadu Ram Shukla, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.20 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 386, 506 IPC and Section 7A of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station- S.I.T., DistrictLucknow.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on 07.11.2022 against four persons, not including the applicant, by the Sub-Registrar, Sadar, Gonda, stating that a complaint had been received regarding forgery committed in the office of the Sub-Registrar. Taking cognizance of the complaint, Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) issued directions for holding an inquiry, which revealed that thumb impressions of the executent of the sale deed dated 09.12.1998 or of the witnesses thereof, were available in the record. The cash register for the period of 4.12.1998 to 01.02.1999, has an entry regarding document No.8349, which was made on 09.12.1998 at Serial No.162 but no stamp duty has been paid regarding that document. Certain other facts were revealed during the inquiry, which indicated that document No.8349 was a forged document.

¶9

In the statement of one Rishabh Mehrotra recorded by the Investigating Officer, he stated that in Case No.5 of 2014 in the Court

¶10

2

¶11

of District Judge, Gonda (Judge Small Case Court) Gonda, a written statement was filed by the tenant Masrur Ahmed on 05.09.2014, wherein he stated that his father had purchased the property in question from late Vishwanath Mehrotra for a sale consideration of Rs.2000/- only, although no deed was executed in this regard, from which it appeared that Masrur Ahmed and his accomplice land mafias were intending to take possesion of the property any how. Masrur Ahmed had taken illegal possession of property belonging to Swami Vivekanand Vidya Mandir, Porterganj, Patvalia in connivance with Brijesh Kumar Awasthi and his associates Santoshi @ Santokhi, Masrur @ Mashruf Ahmed, Taj Mohammad, Salikram, Nagina Devi etc. It is further stated in the FIR that Santoshi had given an application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. on 04.05.2015 stating that Vishwanath Mehrotra had executed a sale deed in his favour on 15.07.1969 and he gave another application on 22.11.2021 for setting aside an ex-parte order passed by the IInd Additonal District Judge, Gonda wherein he stated that the date of sale deed to be 05.07.1969. As the dates of the sale deed mentioned in the two applications filed by the applicant was different, it was deduced that the aforesaid discrepancy establishes commission of a fraud by Santoshi.

¶12

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application as well as rejoinder affidavit, it has been stated that neither the applicant is beneficiary, deed writer or witness and during investigation it has brought that at the stage of Appeal under Section 207 of Revenue Code, 2006 before the S.D.M. applicant filed Vakalatnama on behalf of co-accused Kalawati alias Parvati as well as on behalf of tenant Masroor Ahmad.

¶13

The applicant's involvement in 37 other cases has been disclosed in paragraph 5 of the rejoinder affidavit, in 25 of the cases, the applicant has already been granted bail. Three co-accused persons namely, Masrur Ahmad, Lalitesh Kumar Singh and Santoshi have been granted anticipatory bail by means of orders dated 16.12.2023, 15.12.2023 and 22.04.2024 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/S 438 Cr.P.C. Nos.2878 of 202, 2893 of 2023 and Criminal Misc.Bail Application No. 2430 of 2024.

¶14

The State has as well as informant filed a counter affidavits and a rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant.

¶15

3

¶16

Sri Dadu Ram Shukla, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application of the applicant and he has drawn attention of this Court to the order dated 11.10.2023 passed by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, (C.B.I.) Lucknow, whereby the applicant's bail application was rejected. The learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, (C.B.I.) Lucknow has recorded that involvement of the applicant is prima facie established from the prosecution papers and that the offence committed by the applicant is heinous in nature, which is based on documentary evidence. Sri Shukla has submitted that the aforesaid reasoning of the trial court is well founded and this court should also follow the same. However, upon a query being raised by the court to point out a single document by which the involvement of the applicant in commission of the alleged offences can be established, no document could be pointed by him. From the aforesaid failure of the learned counsel for the informant to point out absolutely any document, which may even prima facie established the applicant's involvement in commission of the offence, it appears that the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, (C.B.I.) Lucknow has made the aforesaid observation in the order dated 11.10.2023, in a cursory manner, without taking care to go through the records, which may justify the aforesaid observation that the involvement of the applicant is established on the basis of documents produced by prosecution.

¶17

Learned counsel for the informant next submitted that keeping in view the long criminal history of the applicant, his bail application should be rejected.

¶18

Although, criminal history is a relevant factor to be kept into consideration while deciding a bail application, a bail application cannot be rejected on the sole ground of criminal history-more particularly when most of the cases in which the applicant is involved are of similar nature.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been implicated in all the cases, because he is being victimized by a police officer and in none of the cases his involvement is supported by any documentary evidence.

¶20

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, particularly the facts that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R.; he has been implicated solely on the basis of subsequent statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and although the trial court has recorded that his involvement in commission of the offence is established by documentary

¶21

4

¶22

evidences, no such document could be placed before this court by learned State Counsel or by the learned counsel for the informant, coupled with the fact that three co-accused persons have already been granted bail, whereas the applicant is languishing in jail since 15.09.2023, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶23

13. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

¶24

Let the applicant - Anil Kumar Singh be released on bail in aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶25

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶26

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶27

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶28

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶29

Order Date :- 29.11.2024 Arvind

¶30

Digitally signed by :- ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anil Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Raj Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Ajay Verma and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ruchi @ Ruchi Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Rahul Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Anil Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mangal Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt.