Khalid Khan Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1671 of 2024

¶3

Khalid Khan

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy.	Home Lko.	.....	Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Rishad Arnnav Rizvi	Murtaza, Aishwarya Prakash Tikku, Syed	Mishra, Ali Jafar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 13

¶7

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA for the State.

¶9

The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by means of the following order passed on 06.08.2024 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court:

¶10

"Heard learned counsel the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶11

The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime/F.I.R No.16/2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S. State S.I.T., District Lucknow.

¶12

It is alleged in the prosecution case that in the office of Sub-Registrar, Sadar, District Gonda at Book/Khand No.2123 Instrument No.5516 denotes that it has been executed by one Haji Jahid Khan S/o Mohd. Shafiq in favour of petitioner Khalid Khan with respect to 1/4 share Gata No.901/0.028 decimal situated at Village Tribhuwan Nagar Grunt, Pargana, Tehsil and District gonda. The said instrument is kept in the office of Sub-Registrar, Sadar but when the particular of instrument executed by Haji Jahid Khan was tallied then it was found that in the Cash Register (Syaha) on 23.08.2000 with respect to instrument no.5516, the name of Ram Kishore is registered as executant and in register no.8 also Ram Kishore's name and thumb impression is present. In the Sub-Registrar's office in Syaha and Register no.8, the thumb

¶13

ABAIL No. 1671 of 2024

¶14

2

¶15

impression of Haji Jahid Khan has not been found, as such, the discrepancy in Zild/Book No.2123 with respect to instrument No.5516 is occurring and as such, the instrument preserved in Zild No.2123 at Instrument no.5516 (allegedly executed by Zahid Khan) appears to be forged.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that first information report has been lodged with delay without any explanation by opposite party No.3 who is clerk in the office of Sub-Registrar, Sadar. It has not been explained by the prosecution as to who are responsible for keeping forged sale deed dated 23.08.2000 in revenue record allegedly executed by Haji Jahid Khan. He further submits that it is highly improbable that a private individual can keep an unregistered document as registered one in the records of Sub-Registrar's office. He submits that F.I.R. demonstrates a total nonapplication of mind by the administration as well as the revenue authorities who are monitoring these matters and a dead person has been made accused in this case. He further submits that father of the applicant namely, Haji Jahid Khan has died in the year 2007, the death certificate is on record. The applicant has inherited the property of his father through laws of inheritance. Sale deed alleged in the F.I.R. has never been executed . Applicant also undertakes that he never executed the sale deed. Applicant has not usurped the share of his brothers. No complaint except this F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant by anyone of his brothers or any other person. Offences are triable by magistrate. Applicant is 65 years old.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that applicant will cooperate in the investigation.

¶18

Learned Addl. Government Advocate submits that investigation is still in progress therefore, applicant may be directed to cooperate in the investigation. Learned A.G.A. further prays for and is granted two weeks' time for filing counter affidavit.

¶19

List on 27.08.2024.

¶20

Considering the above aspect of the matter, perusal of the record as well as the fact that investigation is going on, offences are triable by magistrate and undertaking given by the applicant that he will cooperate in the investigation so also the judgment of Apex Court passed in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶21

ABAIL No. 1671 of 2024

¶22

3

¶23

Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicantKhalid Khan shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned.

¶24

The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

¶25

In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection. "

¶26

The state has filed counter affidavit annexing therewith the copies of the material collected during investigation.

¶27

Learned AGA has not levelled any allegation of any misuse of interim bail granted to the applicant and the investigation already stands concluded.

¶28

In these circumstances, this Court finds no good ground to take a view different from the view taken by a Coordinate bench of this Court on 06.08.2024 granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶29

In view of above, the interim order dated 06.08.2024 is made absolute and the anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶30

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶31

September 15, 2025 Anurag

¶32

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

Khalid Khan v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khalid Khan v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Having Its Office at Jail Vs Smt. Ramrati and Ors.

The New India Assurance Company Ltd.Thru Manager Vs Smt. Madhu Devi and Ors.

New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Lko. Having a Branch at C-Block Vs Sri Chhedi Lal Jaiswal and Ors.

Daalchandra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Kundan Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ram Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another