Allowed

Shoeb Iqbal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC1 Feb 2024/864/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowed the bail application of Shoeb Iqbal in a criminal case regarding illegal construction and alleged cheating. The court noted the brief period of detention and lack of criminal history while imposing standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant, Shoeb Iqbal, is to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties.

Shoeb Iqbal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:9668

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 864 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shoeb Iqbal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Sinha,Ram Chandra Singh,Siddhartha Sinha,Umang Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Arun Sinha, learned counsels for the accused/applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Shoeb Iqbal for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 156/2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Qaiserbagh, District Lucknow, during trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. The First Information Report in this case has been lodged by the LDA primary with allegation that the construction has been made by the Company incorporated by the accused persons in sheer violation of the approved map and the flats which have been constructed illegally have also been sold to bonafide purchaser and in this regard it is not only the regulations and by laws and approved map has been violated but the bonafide/ innocent purchasers have also been defrauded.

¶10

Highlighting above, it is vehemently submitted that at first the map of the project was approved by the Lucknow Development Authority hereinafter termed as 'LDA' on 18.1.1997 for construction of an apartment with six floors. It was in the year 1998 the construction of the building was completed and the flats were handed over to the allotees and as per the rule the betterment charges were also deposited in L.D.A. on 5.5.1998, 17.6.1998 and 30.6.1998. On 19.10.1998 in persuasion of a compounding scheme of State Government of date 19.10.1998 an application was submitted by the Founding Director of the Company i.e. Mr. Shoeb Iqbal in L.D.A. on 28.12.1998 and the sum of Rs. 25,000/- was also deposited and on 6.8.1999, the compounding application of the

¶11

company was approved by the Vice Chairman of the L.D.A. on 28.12.1998.

¶12

It is further submitted that even after completion of the compounding process it was on 21.12.1999 the partner of the company, namely, Michael Paul received a letter on 21.12.1999 from the Executive Engineer of L.D.A., whereby an amount of Rs. 3,33,680 including the compounding charges as well as supervision and betterment charges was directed to be paid and it was in compliance of the same on 12.9.2000 a sum of Rs. 2,12,503/- was deposited in the LDA towards compounding charges requesting to adjust the excess amount of Rs. 1,41,177/deposited earlier.

¶13

It is vehemently submitted that thereafter the partner Mr. Michael Paul was again directed by the L.D.A. to deposit the compounding charges with a direction that if the compounding charges have already been deposited, the receipts of the same should be provided and accordingly the receipts of date 12.9.2000 were provided to the L.D.A. and even after that on 1.5.2023 the Manager of the Company again received notice from the Prescribed Authority, L.D.A. pertaining to Case No. 323/2022 directing the company to appear and file documentary evidence, whereby it is known that the LDA has also issued certain notices before this notice also and on inquiry it was also known that earlier also few notices were issued. The company through its representative had filed detail reply on 15.5.2023, however, without adverting to the procedure prescribed the LDA all of a sudden issued a demolition order on 23.11.2023 and on 28.11.2023 the First Information Report of the instant case has been lodged.

¶14

It is vehemently submitted that the allegations which have been mentioned in the First Information Report are squarely covered by the procedure provided under U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, with regard to the compounding or demolition or dealing in any manner the building which has been constructed in violation of the approved plan and the same in any case may not be sufficient to invoke the criminal prosecution.

¶15

It is also submitted that flat owners appears to be not aggrieved by any act of the applicant or the company as they themselves were aggrieved by the demolition order and have approached this Court by filing various writ petitions, leading Writ Petition being Writ C No. 387/2024 and a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 12.01.2024 has stayed the operation of the orders dated 23.11.2023, 30.12.2023 and 10.01.2024 issued by the Prescribed Authority L.D.A.

¶16

It is vehemently submitted that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and would follow the out come of the decision which may be taken by the Appropriate Authorities having regard to the procedure provided under U.P. Urban Planning Development Act, 1973 or any other institution, however, there may not be any occasion for launching a criminal prosecution against him, more so in absence of any complaint made by flat owners.

¶17

It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail in this case since 07.12.2023, even if the allegations as levelled in the FIR are taken on its face the same may not be sufficient to invoke Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC as the grievance of the L.D.A. is only with regard to alleged construction against the approved plan. He is not having any criminal history and there is no apprehension that the accused-applicant after release on bail, may flee from the process of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty. Charge sheet in this case has already been submitted. Identically placed placed co-accused persons, namely, Mohsin Iqbal has been granted bail vide order dated 18.1.2024 passed in C.M. Bail Application No. 15116 of 2023, while another co-accused Siraj Iqbal has been granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 30.01.2024 passed in 438 Cr.P.C. No. 141 of 2034.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that it is not only the LDA who is aggrieved by the illegal activities of the applicant as the constructions have been raised in violation of the approved plan but the flat owners to whom the flats have been sold by depicting that they have been constructed in furtherance of an approved plan has also been defrauded of huge amount and therefore since the flats have been sold which were illegally constructed these flat owners have also been deceived and defrauded and thus, having regard to the magnitude of the crime the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶19

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that the grievance of the LDA i.e. the informant of the FIR appears to be that the company of the applicant has raised certain constructions in violation of the approved plan. It is claimed by applicant that the irregularities occurred in construction of the flats have been compounded by the LDA, however, the same is the subject matter of a court of competent jurisdiction to dwell on this point as it is shown that various flat owners have approached this Court by filing various writ petitions and stay has also been granted by a Coordinate Bench of this Court restraining the authority from demolition the building. The FIR has not been lodged against

¶20

applicant or any co-accused by any flat owner and it is only the LDA who has lodged the FIR and LDA may only be aggrieved so far as the applicant and his company is concerned with regard to raising construction in violation of approved plan for which a complete procedure has been provided in U.P. Urban Buildings Act, 1973. Identically placed co-accused Mohsin Iqbal has already been granted bail by this Court.

¶21

Thus, I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the applicant with regard to the applicability of penal sections wherein the investigation is going on against the applicant. The applicant is in jail in this case since 07.12.2023 and he is not having any criminal history. His presence may be secured before the Investigating Officer as well as before trial court by placing certain conditions.

¶22

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶23

Let the applicant- Shoeb Iqbal involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶24

(i) The applicant shall remain present before the Investigating Officer as and when his presence would be required.

¶25

(ii) The application shall not leave country without prior permission of the Court.

¶26

(iii)The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶27

(iv) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶28

(v) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶29

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶30

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are

¶31

accepted.

¶32

Observations made herein-above are only for the purpose of disposal of bail application and the same shall not have any bearing on the trial of the case.

¶33

Order Date :- 1.2.2024 Muk

¶34

Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shoeb Iqbal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shoeb Iqbal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jitendra Kumar @ Jatin vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Ram Adhar Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shubham Bhargav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Santosh Gupta @ Santosh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Rahul Singh @ Rahul Somvanshi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Confidential Lko. and Another

Vipin Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.