Disposed

Tahsildar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Nov 2024CRLR/976/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Honble High Court allowed bail to the revisionist Tahsildar in Criminal Revision No. 976 of 2024 (cases involving IPC 420, 468, 506 charges) pending the hearing of the revision, which is likely delayed due to backlog, subject to bond conditions.

What did the court decide?

Accused-revisionist released on bail on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties, subject to undertaking; half of the fine to be deposited within one month.

Tahsildar vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 976 of 2024

¶3

Revisionist :- Tahsildar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashok Kumar Dwivedi,Ram Ashrey Kashyap

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dharmendra Pratap Singh,G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶6

Order on prayer for bail/suspension of sentence in memo of revision.

¶7

The instant criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 10.01.2024 passed by learned Additional Session Judge Court No.1, Etah, in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2022, whereby the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court against the revisionist and one Kaptan Singh and Ganga Singh in Complaint Case No. 2079 of 2022 for charge under Sections 420, 468, 506 IPC has been affirmed.

¶8

The revisionist has been awarded maximum sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 5,000/- fine for charge under Section 420 IPC, five years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 5,000/- fine for charge under Section 468 IPC and two years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 2,000/- fine for charge under Section 506 IPC.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the material available on record. None appeared for opposite party no. 2.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that according to prosecution version the accused persons got the sale deed executed from mentally disabled son of the complainant

¶11

regarding his agricultural land by playing fraud upon him. On 23.05.2006 had got the same registered before the Sub Registrar concerned. The name of the purchasers/ accused persons are mutated on the basis of said sale deed, but mutation order was set-aside on objections of the complainant.

¶12

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist is held in jail custody since 12.02.2024 after dismissal of his appeal by learned appellate court the total custody including period of custody during investigation and trial comes out around more than ten months. He next submitted that original sale deed was not produced during trial and even Pooran Singh, the vendor has not turned up to record his statement during trial. He next submitted that the co-accused Kaptan Singh and Ganga Singh, who are co-purchaser in the sale deed in question, have been enlarged on bail by this Court during pendency of this criminal revision vide order dated 22.10.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No. 824 of 2024 (Kaptan Singh and Ganga Singh). The revisionist has categorically stated in para 10 of the memo of revision that he is not having any criminal history and he has surrendered before the trial Court on 12.2.2024. The revisionist is husband of step daughter of the informant.

¶13

He prays for enlarging the revisionist on bail during the pendency of present revision and further submitted that present revision is not likely to be heard in near future, due to heavy backlog. There is no allegation against him regarding misuse of liberty of bail. The accused-revisionist undertake to abide by the conditions of bail.

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA submitted that offence is of serious nature, execution of sale deed was not produced due to fact that he is not in mentally sound condition. Revisionist prayed for bail in present criminal revision, however he has not disputed

¶15

the period of custody in jail as well as that the co-accused have been enlarged on bail.

¶16

Considering the rival submissions made by the parties and nature of offence and the quantum of punishment awarded and the fact that revision is not likely to be decided early, due to pendency of backlog cases and without further commenting on the merits of the case this Court deems it fit to enlarge the accused-revisionists on bail during the pendency of this revision.

¶17

Let revisionist, Tahsildar convicted and sentenced in the above case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to furnishing undertaking that he will co-operate in the hearing of the revision.

¶18

Half of the fine imposed shall be deposited within one month after release and remaining fine shall remain stayed, and in case of failure in depositing the amount of fine within the stipulated period, the trial court will take coercive action against the revisionist.

¶19

Order on memo of revision.

¶20

Summon the lower court record.

¶21

List this revision be listed for final hearing in its due course.

¶22

Order Date :- 14.11.2024 HR

¶23

Digitally signed by :- HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tahsildar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tahsildar v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar Prajapati vs State of Up and 3 Others

Gajendra Yadav Alias Girish vs State of U.P. and Another

Nafis vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi Singh @ Manu Varma and Another vs State of Up and Another

Vikash Sharma vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Amzad and 10 Others vs State of Up and Another