Sommay Jain v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Feb 2025NABAIL/1291/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail dismissed; Sommay Jain; Section 482 BNSS; Case Crime No. 399 of 2022; IPC Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 447, 511; forgery/forged documents; Moradabad Development Authority; Village Sonakpur; parity claim Ibrahim and Abdul Qadir; revenue record ownership query; civil suit pending; Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Court No. 35; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:23730; order dated 19.2.2025.

What did the court decide?

None — the prayer for anticipatory bail was expressly refused. ¶¶13 (judgment para 7)

Sommay Jain vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — the prayer for anticipatory bail was expressly refused.

¶¶13 (judgment para 7)

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS should be granted to applicant Sommay Jain in Case Crime No.0399 of 2022 (IPC Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 447 and 511), relating to alleged forgery and occupation of Moradabad Development Authority property. +1 more

¶¶7

Court's answer

After considering the settled principles of anticipatory bail, the submissions, the nature of accusation, the role of the applicant and all attending circumstances, and expressly without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court held it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail and refused the prayer.

¶¶12 (judgment para 6)

Ratio / Principle

During arguments the Court made a specific query requiring the applicant's ownership of the disputed land to be shown through his name in the revenue record, but learned counsel for the applicant could not produce any such document.

¶¶11 (judgment para 5)

Key takeaways

The instant anticipatory bail application stands dismissed.ratio¶¶13 (judgment para 7)

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.; Court No. 35; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:23730) dismissed the anticipatory bail application under Section 482 BNSS of applicant Sommay Jain in Case Crime No.0399 of 2022 (Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 447 and 511 IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, District Moradabad), which arises from the alleged use of forged documents by the applicant and co-accused to take possession of Moradabad Development Authority property at Village Sonakpur. Counsel contended the dispute was purely civil with a suit pending and claimed parity with co-accused Ibrahim and Abdul Qadir, who had been granted anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on 05.07.2023; however, on the Court's specific query counsel could show no revenue-record document establishing the applicant's ownership of the land. Holding it not a fit case for anticipatory bail, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court refused the prayer and dismissed the application.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:23730

¶2

Court No. - 35

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1291 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Sommay Jain Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Milan Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Ram Milan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under Section 482 BNSS) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.0399 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 447 and 511 of IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District Moradabad.

¶8

In short, the prosecution story is that the applicant and other coaccused persons by preparing forged documents have taken illegal possession over the property of Moradabad Development Authority situated at Village Sonakpur, Tehsil & District Moradabad.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, in fact, no such incident has taken place. The applicants has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. In respect of the land in question, a civil suit is pending before the court below. The dispute is purely civil in nature but Development Authority deliberately and intentionally has given criminal colour by loding the impugned FIR with the sole purpose to harass and exploit the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant is claiming parity of co-accused Ibrahim and Abdul Qadir who has already been granted anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial by this Court vide order dated 05.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.7504 of 2023, copy of bail order has been annexed as Annexure no.13 to the affidavit.

¶10

During arguments, Court has made specific query to show the ownership over the land in dispute by showing the name of the

¶11

applicant in the revenue record, but learned counsel for the applicant could not show any documents in this regard.

¶12

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant. The prayer made in the application is hereby refused.

¶13

Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application is dismissed .

¶14

Order Date :- 19.2.2025 Ajeet

¶15

Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sommay Jain v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sommay Jain v. State of U.P.

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

Sumit Yadav vs State of U.P.

Sumit Yadav vs State of U.P.

Rahul Bind vs State of U.P.

Manoj Singh vs State of U.P.

Munna vs State of U.P. and Another

Mustafa vs State of U.P. and Another