Santoshi Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

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

¶12

Court 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 (the applicant), Masrur @ Mashruf Ahmed, Taj Mohammad, Salikram, Nagina Devi etc. It is further stated in the FIR that the applicant 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 II^nd 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 the applicant.

¶13

In the affidavit filed in support of the application it has been stated that the applicant is an 85 years old innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶14

The applicant's involvement in ten other cases has been disclosed in paragraph 19 of the bail application and in one of the cases, the applicant has already been granted bail by means of an order dated 12.12.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7754 of 2023. Two co-accused persons namely, Masrur Ahmad and Lalitesh Kumar Singh have been granted anticipatory bail by means of orders dated 16.12.2023 and 15.12.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/S 438 Cr.P.C. Nos.2878 of 2023 and 2893 of 2023

¶15

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

¶16

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of

¶17

the case and keeping in view the fact the FIR alleges that the fraudulent transactions were committed by the main co-accused Brijesh Kumar Awasthi and the applicant is alleged to be his associate; that the applicant has been implicated because he had filed two applications- one for impleadment and another for setting aside an ex-parte order, in both of which he had mentioned two different dates of sale deed executed in his favour, although he did not file any copy of the sale deed; the applicant is an 85 years old person and it is alleged that he is an illiterate person and co-accused Brijesh Kumar Awasthi, who is an Advocate, has taken his thumb impression by misleading him and that the applicant has been granted bail in another case involving similar allegations and yet he is languishing in jail since 05.09.2023 whereas two other co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶18

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶19

Let the applicant - Santoshi 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:-

¶20

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶21

[Subhash Vidyarthi,J.]

¶22

Order Date :- 22.4.2024 -Amit K-

¶23

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

Santoshi v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santoshi v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. 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

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

Rukmini Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P.

Indradev Vs Shri Umesh Singh and 19 Others

Sushil and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Om Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ravindranath Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others