Kishan Lal and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:62324

Court No. - 69

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 928 of 2025

Applicant :- Kishan Lal And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed by counsel for the applicants is taken on record.

¶7

Heard counsel for the applicants, Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

The instant application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants in Case Crime No. 503 of 2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C., Police Station- Jait, District- Mathura.

¶9

Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicants are the bonafide purchaser of the land in dispute. The sale deed was executed by the co-accused, Vijay Kumar. The stamp fees as well as sale consideration were duly paid by the applicants to the coaccused, Vijay Kumar. At this stage, there is no credible evidence to link the applicants with the offence. The applicant no. 1 has no criminal antecedents. The criminal history of the applicant no. 2 has been explained in para no. 4 of the supplementary affidavit. The investigation is still pending. It is next submitted that the applicants have apprehension of their arrest and in case, the applicants are released on anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the said liberty.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶11

Counsel for the applicants further submits that the application for grant of anticipatory bail be confined only till the submission of police report.

¶12

Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the applicants, considering the nature of accusations and the fact that the sale deed was executed by the co-accused, Vijay Kumar, the fact that the stamp fees as well as sale consideration were duly paid by the applicants to the co-accused, Vijay Kumar, at this stage, there is no substantive evidence against the applicants, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report.

¶13

In the event of arrest, the applicants- Mohammad Khalid be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime till the submission of police report, if any, under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C., on 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 with the following conditions:-

¶14

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

¶15

(ii) The applicants 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶16

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the Police Commissioner concerned.

¶17

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.

¶18

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicants.

¶19

The applicants are directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶20

The application stands disposed of.

¶21

Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Sachin Mishra

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kishan Lal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishan Lal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Virendra Rajbhar vs State of U.P. and Another

Abdul Kadir @ Kadir Khan vs State of U.P.

Uday Narayan Lal vs State of U.P.

Pawan Pal vs State of U.P.

Suraj vs State of U.P.

Boby and 6 Others vs State of Up