High Court · 2021
Case Details
Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3299 of 2022 Applicant :- Smt Farida Begum And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Agarwal,Indra Bhan Yadav,Shiv Bahadur Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. This anticipatory bail application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 519 of 2021, under sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Behat, District Saharanpur. Facts in brief are that the dispute is mainly related to Khasra No. 225(M) and 147/2 area measuring 1.024 hectare said to be covered with water and entered as Shreni 4 in revenue records which is said to be allotted in favour of co-accused persons and then transferred in the name of trust operated by the present applicants, in connivance with other co-accused persons posted in revenue department at that time, though no any such allotment of land was made in favour of any person, as the land being covered under water. It is submitted that this land was transferred in favour of Wahid Educational and Charitable Trust after the year 2014 by the tenure holders who obtained rights of Bhumidhar with transferable rights in the year 2014 after 10 years of lease granted in their favour in the year 1976 as tenure holders with none transferable rights. On the basis of report submitted by Lekhpal and Tehsildar, order was passed by District Magistrate to register a case and to issue notices under Section 128 Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code on 18.11.2017, in pursuance to which case was registered as case No. 1 of 2016- 2017. This order, passed by District Magistrate was challenged before the Board of Revenue in revision and by order dated 24.02.2020 it was set aside. On 8 September 2021 Sub-Divisional Magistrate called a fresh report from Tehsildar who submitted its report on the basis of which order dated 08.09.2021 was passed by the A.D.M. and the aforesaid lease granted in favour of the transferees was set aside in pursuance to which a report was filed by S.D.M. making compliance of the aforesaid order passed by A.D.M. for setting aside the lease and the land was entered in favour of the State in revenue record. Order dated 08.09.2021 passed by A.D.M. was again challenged before the Board of Revenue in revision No. 1854 of 2021 in which the operation of order dated 08.09.2021 was stayed by order dated 16.09.2021 and it is still pending. Further submitted that, later on present F.I.R. was lodged on 14.10.2021 against the present applicants along with other co- accused persons including Registrar, Kanoongo, Lekhpal, Revenue Inspector and S.D.M. posted at that time in continuation to letter No. 1601/ S.T. dated 27 July 2021 on the basis of complaint made by Ranbir Singh son of Jagbhan Singh after getting the matter enquired into and a report by S.D.M. dated 09.09.2021 in which it was mentioned that area related to Khasra No. 225(M) and 147/2 were in dispute in present case. The aforesaid land as shown to be allotted in favour of the transferees as land with non-transferable rights and thereafter in the year 2014 conferment of transferable rights, was forged and such land was transferred by the transferees in favour of Wahid Educational and Charitable Trust in which present applicants Javed and Mahmood were members of the trust and other applicants are related to them. It is also submitted that after conclusion of investigation charge sheet was also submitted by the I.O. on 01.07.2022 without adequate evidence against the applicants that they have committed forgery with other co-accused persons but they are bona fide purchasers. The tenure holders who transferred the land in favour of Trust are not related to the present applicants. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the criminal history against the applicants have been explained and only on the basis of criminal history pending against the accused entitlement of bail cannot be denied. Learned counsel for the applicants relied his argument on the judgments in the case of Md. Ibrahim and others Versus State of Bihar & Another, criminal miscellaneous appeal No. 1695 of 2009 decided on 4 September 2009 and also Syed Yaseer Ibrahim Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, criminal appeal No. 295 of 2022 decided on 28 February 2022. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicants are under apprehension of imminent arrest. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the trial, so requested for anticipatory bail. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and urged that the land in question was shown in revenue records as land related to the river from the very outset. It is also urged that the inquiry report on the basis of which F.I.R. was lodged was neither challenged before any authority nor it was set aside but it is intact even today on the basis of aforesaid report no any order was passed by D.M. or A.D.M. but the real facts of the case were found out. It is also urged that it was found during enquiry that from the Fasli year 1359 to 1418 this land was registered in the revenue record as the land related to the river which could not be allotted in favour of anyone. In Fasli year 1419 to 1424 by committing forgery in revenue records the area was increased though it was not allotted by the revenue authorities in favour of any person. Neither it was allotted as tenure holder in the nature of non- transferable rights nor transferable rights were conferred on anyone. It is also urged that the present applicants and the transferees in connivance with revenue authorities got the land to be entered in the name of the transferees though there was no any such allotment and the land was ultimately got transferred in favour of the aforesaid trust which was being operated by the applicants in which applicant No. 2 and 5 are sons of Abdul Wahid and applicant No. 3 and 4 are sons of applicant No. 2 and applicant No. 1 is wife of applicant No. 2. It is also urged that Irshad Rashid who is co-accused in this case were also working as servant in the aforesaid trust, in this way it cannot be said that the present applicants and other co-accused persons are not related to one another and the whole transaction was not in the knowledge of present applicants who are beneficiaries. It is also urged that against applicant No. 2 Mohd. Iqbal there are 28 cases as criminal history; against applicant No. 3 Mohd. Wajid there are 19 cases as criminal history; against applicant No. 4 Mohd. Javed there are 24 cases of criminal history; against applicant No. 5 Mahmood Ali there are 14 cases as criminal history and most of them are of similar nature including the cases related to U.P. Gangster Act, in this way applicants cannot be said to be entitled for anticipatory bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record and long criminal history against the applicants no case for anticipatory bail in favour of applicant Nos. 2 to 5 is made out, therefore anticipatory bail application on behalf of the applicant Nos. 2 to 5 is hereby, rejected. So far as the anticipatory bail application is related to applicant No. 1 Smt. Farida Begum, she being a women anticipatory bail is allowed in her favour during the pendency of trial. The applicant No. 1- Smt Farida Begum, shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the learned court everyday when case is fixed except exempted; (ii) The applicant 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 office; (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if she has passport, the same shall be deposited by her before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned. In default of any of the conditions, this order will automatically stand vacated. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is disposed of finally. Order Date :- 25.4.2023 Suraj Srivastav Digitally signed by :- Digitally signed by :- Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA SURAJ SRIVASTAVA SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad