Mohd. Majid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko.

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 19 of 2023, under Section 34, 406, 420 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Sarojni Nagar, District Lucknow.

¶10

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged on 16.01.2023 stating that the informant had purchased three plots of land from the accused persons through sale deed dated 03.12.2016 but thereafter possession of the land was not delivered to them and the sale consideration was also not returned to them. Copies of the sale deeds have been annexed with the affidavit in support of the applicant wherein it is categorically stated that the possession of the land sold has been delivered to the purchaser.

¶11

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant's involvement in five other cases has been disclosed by filing a

¶12

supplementary affidavit, in all of which the applicant has already been granted bail and in one case, the Investigating Officer has submitted a final report.

¶13

Co-accused Mohd. Ismail @ Mohd. Adil @ Santosh Yadav has already been granted bail by means of an order dated 04.09.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc Bail Application No. 10948 of 2023.

¶14

The learned State Counsel has opposed the prayer of the bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶15

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the grievance of the informant is regarding non delivery of possession of the land purchased through three separate registered sale deeds; that in the sale deed it is narrated that the possession of the land was handed over to the purchasers; that it appears that no civil suit has been instituted claim any relief against the accused persons whereas the dispute predominantly appears to be of civil nature, coupled with the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 04.07.2022 whereas a co-accused has been granted bail and without making any observations which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail.

¶16

8.Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶17

Let the applicant- Mohd. Majid be released on bail in the aforesaid case, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to the following conditions: -

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 7.5.2024 Pradeep/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Majid v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Majid v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. 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

Dharam Raj Vs Distt. Registrar Gonda

Susheel Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue and 8 Others

Smt. Sarita Devi Vs Central Bank of India Branch @348 Srinagar Hat Ayodhya and Anr.

M/S G F T Fashion ,Lko. Thru. Its Proprietor Gulsher Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry of Finance Lko. and 2 Others

Dharmendra Prajapati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ram Naresh Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others