Ramesh Chandra v. Kailash Chandra' by deciding it in favour of the
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:114325 Court No. - 68 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6912 of 2024 Applicant :- Anurag Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Mahendra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Mahendra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 2. The present application has been filed on behalf of applicant- Anurag for anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.327 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station- Maudarwaja, District- Farrukhabad, during the pendency of trial. 3. This is the second anticipatory bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first anticipatory bail application was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 12.3.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.4185 of 2023 and the following order was passed: "1. List has been revised. 2. Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Shailendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nitin Kesarwani, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.327 of 2022, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. at Police Station- Maudarwaja, District- Farrukhabad with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail. PROSECUTION STORY: 5. The informant Eklavya Kumar moved an application before the Chief Minister, UP stating that the trustees of Shri Hanumanji Maharaj Virajman Mandir Baag No.436, village Arrah Pahadpur, district Farrukhabad, namely, Dr. Anupam Dubey, Ramesh Chandra Gupta, Abhishek, Anurag in collusion with the Consolidation Officer Satya Prakash Sachan have got the property transferred to land mafiya through fake documents. RIVAL CONTENTIONS: (Arguments on behalf of applicant) 6. Learned counsel for applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The name of the applicant is recorded in the revenue records as it is his ancestral property. The aforesaid dispute has been decided in civil suit in favour of ancestor of the applicant and the aforesaid file was destroyed on 16.7.1968. Even the Consolidation Officer has passed an order dated 10.11.2004 in Case No.73 of 1175 'Ramesh Chandra vs. Kailash Chandra' by deciding it in favour of the applicant. The said order is filed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit filed with the anticipatory bail application. 7. It is further stated that the applicant had filed partition suit before the Sub-District Magistrate, Sadar, Farrukhabad and in pursuant to that petition vide order dated 12.4.2012 the property was partitioned. In the said order of the Sub-District Magistrate, Sadar dated 12.4.2012, Gata Nos.998/0.522 and 999K/0.006 were recorded in the name of Hanumanji Maharaj Virajman Mandir and the rest property was divided amongst the shareholders equitably, and thereafter, the name of applicant was also mutated in the revenue records. 8. It is further stated that the informant preferred an appeal against the said order dated 10.11.2004 of Consolidation Officer, Farrukhabad before the Settlement Consolidation Officer, Farrukhabad, which was dismissed on 30.1.2018. The informant again preferred a revision against the said orders dated 10.11.2004 and 30.1.2018 before the court of Deputy Director of Consolidation, Farrukhabad. 9. It is also argued that the matter of purely civil nature has been converted into criminal one by the informant and the applicant has been illegally dragged into the said criminal proceedings. No offence of forgery or preparing any forged documents is made out against the applicant. It is further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant except one Case Crime No.105 of 1993, under Section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Chhibramau, District- Farrukhabad now Kannauj, in which the applicant has been enlarged on bail by this Court. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. It is further stated that applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail. (Arguments on behalf of opposite party/State) 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that the aforesaid mutation in the Khatauni was made in the revenue records on the basis of an order dated 16.7.1968 alleged to have been passed by SDO court in Case No.1212/413 and the name of the trustees were deleted and the name of Jwala Prasad, Ram Nath and Mewa Ram, the ancestors of applicant, were recorded. The informant tried to approach the office of the revenue court by means of several questionnaires dated 29.6.2016, 27.6.2017, 5.3.2018 and 29.8.2019 regarding the information in Case No.1212/413 and order dated 16.7.1968, but no such record was found to be registered in the court. It is further stated that the applicant and other co-accused persons in collusion have executed the sale deed to numerous persons without any title with respect to the said land. 11. It is further stated that there are contradictory statement on behalf of accused- applicant in Civil Suit No.488/2012 (Hanumanji Maharaj vs. Ramesh Chandra and others) filed in the court of Civil Judge/Senior Division, whereby it is stated that Shri Jagannath Prasad has sold the interest by executing the sale deed to Jwala Prasad, Ram Nath and Mewa Ram. In spite of the said averments in paragraph-14 of the written statement, the sale deed dated 26.7.1942 has never been produced by the applicant in any court of law. The said sale deed is not traceable in the office of Sub- Registrar. 12. It is further argued that the applicant has been convicted in Case Crime No.105 of 1993, under Section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Chhibramau, District- Farrukhabad now Kannauj in the year 2003 and the said bail order has not been annexed to the anticipatory bail application, as such the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail. CONCLUSION: 13. After hearing the rival submissions of learned counsels for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that applicant is a previous convicted person, I do not find it a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 14. The present anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 15. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of anticipatory bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial." 4. Learned counsel for the applicant could not bring to light any new ground for pressing the instant anticipatory bail application. 5. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that no new ground is there for pressing the instant anticipatory bail application, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. The present anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected. 8. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of anticipatory bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 18.7.2024 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal)