Allowed

Michael Paul v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Allahabad HC30 May 2024ABAIL/1209/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In CM A. No. 1209/2024, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) granted anticipatory bail to appellant Michael Paul, aged 89, facing arrest under U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 for alleged illegal construction violations. Bail conditions included a bond and appearance.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail subject to personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties and compliance with conditions to appear, not induce witnesses, and not leave country.

Michael Paul vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:41247

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1209 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Michael Paul Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Misra, learned counsels for the accused/applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Michael Paul in Case Crime No. 156/2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Kaiserbagh, District Lucknow, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as he is apprehending arrest in the abovementioned case.

¶8

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the anticipatory 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.

¶9

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

¶10

deposited and on 6.8.1999, the compounding application of the company was approved by the Vice Chairman of the L.D.A. on 28.12.1998.

¶11

It is further submitted that even after completion of the compounding process it was on 21.12.1999 company 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.

¶12

It is vehemently submitted that thereafter the company 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.

¶13

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, 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 attract criminal prosecution.

¶14

It is also submitted that the 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 passed by the L.D.A. 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.

¶15

It is vehemently submitted that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and would follow the outcome 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.

¶16

It is further submitted that criminal history of one case has been alleged against the applicant, however, offshoot of instant instant matter the applicant is aged about 89 years and is also suffering from various age related ailments and he is ready to cooperate in the investigation and would remain present before the Investigating Officer as and when his presence would be required.

¶17

Identically placed co-accused persons, namely, Mohsin Iqbal, Shoeb Iqbal and Monis Iqbal have been granted bail vide orders dated 18.1.2024, 01.02.2024 and 27.2.2024 passed in C.M. Bail Application Nos. 15116 of 2023, 864 of 2024 and 416 of 2024 respectively, while another co-accused Siraj Iqbal has been granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 30.01.2024 passed in C.M. Anticipatory Bail U/S 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 anticipatory 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 wherein the applicant is a partner 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

¶20

restraining the authority from demolishing the building. The FIR has not been lodged against applicant or any other coaccused by any flat owners 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, Shoeb Iqbal and Siraj Iqbal have already been granted bail/anticipatory by this Court. Matter requires consideration.

¶21

List this case on 26.06.2024 , by which date the State, if so wish, may file counter affidavit/objections.

¶22

It is provided that till the next date of listing in the event of arrest of the applicant- Michael Paul involved in the above noted case, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/ Investigating Officer/ arresting officer subject to the following conditions:

¶23

(1) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶24

(2) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶25

(3) The applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the Court.

¶26

Order Date :- 30.5.2024 Muk

¶27

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

Michael Paul v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Michael Paul v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Om Prakash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko and 4 Others

Krishna Kumar Shukla Vs Stateof U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 4 Others

Shyam Baboo Vs U.P.Co Operative Sugar Factories and 1 Ors.

Ms. Shadan Akhtar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 7 Others

Ashish Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning, Lko. and 2 Others

Mohammad Haneef and 7 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.