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

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:48244

Court No. - 31

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3543 of 2023

Applicant :- Bharat Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rohitash Kumar Singh,Nagendra Singh,Prashant Singh

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajendra Prasad Sharma

¶6

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶7

1-Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant.

¶8

2-The instant bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 233 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station-Mahrajganj, District-Raebareli during the pendency of trial.

¶9

3-The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant-Deendayal lodged a first information report on 16.05.2019 for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. against the applicant with regard to alleged incident which took place between 23.03.2016 and 02.04.2018 making allegation inter-alia that after the death of Devtadeen (elder brother of the complainant's father), name of the complainant and other successors came into the revenue records of Khasra No. 986/1.8480 hectare, 1058/0.2490 hectare, 1115/2.4200 hectare, 1147/0.0820 hectare, 1327/0.2910 hectare and 1339/0.1330 hectare, 1302/0.2280 hectare, 1327/0.2910 hectare and 1339/0.1330 hectare (total nine plots, area 5.7450 hectare) and as such, they are owner and are having actual physical possession over the above land. The accused applicant, on the basis of a forged will dated 28.12.1987, obtained an order dated 03.09.2002 in his favour from the Court of Consolidation OfÏcer, Sadar Raebareli (hereinafter referred to as 'C.O.')

¶10

passed in Case No. 561 of 2002, under Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as 'CH Act'). The said order was challenged before the court of Settlement OfÏcer, Consolidation, Raebareli (hereinafter referred to as 'S.O.C.') in Case No. 149616041741/1317/2182/741, in which vide order dated 31.03.2003, the operation and effect of order dated 03.09.2002 of C.O. was stayed and the said order is still operative. F.I.R. also alleges that the dispute relating to said land is going on before the court of C.O., S.O.C., Deputy Director Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as 'D.D.C.') and High Court but the accused, in collision with his associates by committing fraud, took a loan of Rs. 8,00,000/- on the basis of forged and false afÏdavit dated 23.03.2016 mortgaging the said property inlieu of loan amount. Similarly on 02.04.2018, applicant had also obtained a loan of Rs. 15,98,000/-.

¶11

4-It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the order dated 03.09.2002 passed by C.O. was challenged before the court of S.O.C., in which vide order dated 31.03.2003, operation and effect of order dated 03.09.2002 was stayed but the order of S.O.C. dated 31.03.2003 was challenged by the applicant before the court of D.D.C. in Revision No. 119 under Section 48(1) of C.H. Act, which was allowed vide order dated 17.01.2009 setting aside the order dated 31.03.2003 of the S.O.C. and remanded the matter to the Court of S.O.C. Thereafter, the S.O.C. passed an order dated 25.09.2009 returning the file to the court of C.O. directing the parties concerned to appear before him on 19.10.2009. Thereafter, Mahadev preferred a writ petition being Consolidation No. 562 of 2011 which was disposed of vide order dated 02.08.2011 directing that the order dated 03.09.2002 passed by C.O. in Case No. 561 shall remain subject to the order passed in the proceeding under Section 9(A) of C.H. Act and for disposal of the objection. It is next submitted that the order dated 03.09.2002 passed by C.O. is still effective and consequently name of the applicant has been recorded in CH-45. It is also submitted that on 23.03.2016, applicant had taken a loan of Rs. 8,00,000/- from the United Bank of India

¶12

mortgaging the document of land which was paid by him and accordingly a release deed dated 20.06.2017 has been issued by the bank concerned. Thereafter in the month of April, 2018, applicant had further taken a loan of Rs. 15,98,000/-, out of which he has paid Rs. 3,50,000/-. Much emphasis has been given by contending that there is no complaint of the bank. The loan has been granted to the applicant after verifying the documents. It is also submitted that several dispute between the parties concerned is going on since 2002 and on account of said dispute, applicant has been implicated in eight criminal cases, which has been explained in paragraph no. 3 of the supplementary afÏdavit dated 12.06.2024 by contending that in Case Crime Nos. 232 of 2007, 0232 of 2019 and 0029 of 2020, applicant has been granted bail, in Case Crime No. 408 of 2010, applicant has been exonerated from the charges, in Case Crime No. 0236 of 2019, final report has been submitted in favour of the applicant and in Case Crime No. 0370 of 2016, an interim protection has been granted to the applicant vide order dated 29.04.2019 in an Application u/s 482/378/407 No. 3189 of 2019. Lastly it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 31.12.2022 but till date, no charge has been framed against him and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case.

¶13

5-Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that between the parties concerned, several dispute is going on since 1987. The applicant is habitual for preparing forged will and using the said forged document, he used to get the property of others. The proceeding under Section 3/4 U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 was also initiated against the applicant, in which an externment order dated 27.01.2023 was passed by the District Magistrate, Raebareli for a period of six months against the applicant. Much

¶14

emphasis has been given by contending that the loan has been obtained by filing a false afÏdavit before the bank that there is no litigation with regard to land in question. The applicant is an influential and domineer person of the society, therefore, no one dares to raise a finger against him. Therefore, bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.

¶15

6-Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that it is an admitted fact that several dispute between the applicant and complainant are going on since long, as noted above. The applicant is in jail since 31.12.2022 but till date, charge has not been framed against him. There is no complaint of the bank with regard to sanction of loan to the applicant. From the order dated 02.08.2011 of the High Court, it is also clear that the order dated 03.08.2002 passed by C.O. is still in force which shall remain subject to final order passed in the proceeding of Case No. 561 pending before the C.O. The name of the applicant has been mutated in the revenue records, therefore, applicant has made out prima-facie case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed .

¶16

7-Let the applicant- Bharat Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶17

(i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.

¶18

(ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

(iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity.

¶20

(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail.

¶21

8-In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

¶22

Order Date :- 16.7.2024 saurabh

¶23

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat 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

Similar cases

Sonu Kashyap vs State of U.P. and Another

Nitesh vs State of U.P.

Brijesh vs State of U.P.

Saltu Ram vs State of U.P.

Dharmendra Banjara @ Ramu vs State of U.P.

Mintoo Beldar and Another vs State of U.P. and Another