Allowed

Pradeep Prajapati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2024ABAIL/794/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the applicant's anticipatory bail application in a case involving allegations of illegal sale of acquired land and forgery. The court noted that three co-accused had already been granted bail and that the applicant had cooperated with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to Pradeep Prajapati subject to conditions regarding police interrogation, non-interference with evidence, and appearance before the Trial Court.

Pradeep Prajapati vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:29298

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 794 of 2024 Applicant :- Pradeep Prajapati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pranjal Krishna Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Suhaib Ashraf, Advocate holding brief of Shri Pranjal Krishna, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri Abhishek Kumar Singh, the learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

¶6

The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Crl. Case No.1748 of 2017 (State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Verma & Others) under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., arising out of Crime No.0049 of 2016, P.S. Lambhua, district Sultanpur.

¶7

It is alleged in the prosecution case the complainant is coowner of khasra No.87 Min, 96, 96cha, 91ka, 112kha, 112ga, 84ba, 112ka, 84, situated at village Gopalpur, Pargana Meeranpur, Tehsil Lambhua, district Sultanpur. The accused persons are alleged to have sold the acquired land despite the ban imposed on sale-purchase and mutation of the acquired land and the mutation proceedings of the said land are going on. It is further alleged that the accused persons have misled the Highway Authority of India, sold excess land than their share, in lieu of obtaining wrongful gain of compensation.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first information report was lodged on 6.2.2016. The notification for

¶9

acquisition of land was issued under relevant Act on 22.10.2013. It is submitted that a perusal of the notification shows that except Gata No.87, none of the Gatas referred in the first information report are subject matter of the gazette notification. Therefore, the entire story of the first information report is bogus. As regards gata No.87, part of gata No.87 is involved in the notification. The remaining part of gata No.87 which is in possession of the complainant has been left out. The complainant and co-accused Sanjay Verma, Rajeev Verma & Dayawati Verma have been granted compensation way back in September, 2015. This fact is evident from a perusal of the Form 11 issued for the purpose of land acquisition and the same has been obtained by the applicant under Right to Information Act.

¶10

It is submitted that even the registered sale deeds have been executed after September 2015, precisely on 31.12.2015 and therefore, it cannot be said that in any manner the applicant has executed sale deed in lieu of obtaining compensation wrongfully. It is further submitted that it is a clear case of blackmailing and harassment by the complainant. The applicant has been implicated merely because he had witnessed the sale deed and has no criminal antecedents.

¶11

It is further submitted that the applicant has cooperated in the investigation. Charge sheet has been filed. He undertakes to cooperate in the trial. Co-accused Rajeev Kumar Verma, Mahendra Kumar and Nitin Verma have already been granted anticipatory bail by means of orders dated 16.1.2023, 22.12.2023 and 19.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 98/2023, 3051/2023 and 1194/2023.

¶12

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of

¶13

the case and keeping in view the fact that three co-accused persons have already been granted anticipatory bail in the present case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in the present case

¶14

Accordingly the anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶15

Therefore, it is directed that in the event of arrest/appearance of applicant- Pradeep Prajapati before the learned Trial Court till the next date of listing, he shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime on his furnishing personal bail bond and two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court:-

¶16

(i). that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶17

(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 officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶18

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court'

¶19

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and

¶20

(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶21

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

¶22

Order Date :- 10.4.2024/-Amit K-

¶23

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

Pradeep Prajapati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Prajapati 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

Savita Pathak Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

Dr. Vinay Kumar Pandey @ Vinnu Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sonu Giri Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Lko. and 7 Others

Sukhbir Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Bagish Kumar @ Bagish Kumar Shukla @ Guddu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

M/S Arya Cine Entertainment Lucknow Thru. Proprietor Rahul Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others