High Court · 2025

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant Fateh Singh with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 22.10.2024 passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge-II / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gautam Budh Nagar in Bail Application No.3368 of 2024 and release the appellant on bail in Complaint Case No.130 of 2022 under Sections 364, 420, 467, 468, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Bisrakh, District Gautam Budh Nagar.

2. Heard Sri Dileep Kumar, Senior Advocate assisted by S/Sri Rajrshi Gupta and Uma Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and perused the entire record.

3. The prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that about 8 - 9 years before, Ratan Pal, the husband of the informant-Smt. Bhagwati, was missing and a missing report was lodged at P.S. Bisrakh on 14.4.2003 and he was a recorded tenure holder of some agricultural land. Lekhpal Jagdish Sharma offered her to pay Rs.50,000/- for mutation in her name and out of which Rs.30,000/- was paid by the informant but subsequently she came to know that the name of Anuj Garg was mutated in place of her husband Ratan Pal and she was further informed by the Lekhpal aforesaid that the land was sold by her husband in favour of Anuj Garg on 29.9.2000 and Satish s/o Chhatra, Fateh Singh s/o Ratan, Gautam s/o Kartar and Sanjog s/o Kartar were the witnesses of the said said deed. The aforesaid persons are trying to take forcible possession of her land and in criminal conspiracy of all the accused persons, a false sale deed has been prepared and the land of the informant has been grabbed. After investigation, the police submitted closure report in the said matter and on protest filed by the informant, the protest petition was treated as a criminal complaint but the same was dismissed on the point of summoning by the Magistrate Court vide order dated 13.6.2018. However, the said order was challenged by way of revision, which was decided on 29.9.2021 and the matter was remanded back to the Magistrate Court and subsequently a fresh summoning order was passed on 31.10.2022 and the accused persons were summoned to face trial under Sections 364, 420, 467, 468, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is also submitted that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. It is further submitted that as per allegations made in the criminal complaint, no offence is made out against the present appellant. F.I.R. itself speaks that the sale deed was not executed in favour of the present appellant. It is further submitted that the appellant is neither the vendor nor the vendee in the said sale deed and no consideration has been passed in his favour. His name has been mentioned as a witness to the sale deed in the complaint itself. It is further submitted that the appellant has not taken the possession of any land of the informant. The money, if any, was given by the informant herself to Lekhpal Jagdish Sharma and the present appellant is not the beneficiary in this matter. It is also submitted that the appellant has no concern with the missing of the husband of the informant and no such police report is available on record. He has nothing to do with the Lekhpal Jagdish Sharma. It is also submitted that only on the basis of suspicion the present case has been initiated against the appellant. It is also submitted that the present matter in true sense is a civil dispute between the informant and Anuj Garg, the purchaser of the land. It is also submitted that Original Suit No.353 of 2015 was filed by the informant Smt. Bhagwati before the competent court at Gautam Budh Nagar and the said Suit was decreed in favour of the informant against the defendant Anuj Garg and the present appellant has nothing to do with the same. It is also submitted that the appellant is an old and infirm person suffering from the diseases of old age. It is also submitted that a pure civil dispute has been attempted to give colour of a criminal case by the informant of this case and since the original suit has been decided in favour of the informant, she in fact suffered with no monetary loss. It is further submitted that the appellant has no criminal history to his credit. It is further submitted that the learned Special Court did not consider the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record in right perspective and bail application was rejected in a cursory manner. It is further submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 22.10.2024. It is also submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.

6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.

9. Let the appellant Fateh Singh involved in Complaint Case No.130 of 2022 under Sections 364, 420, 467, 468, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Bisrakh, District Gautam Budh Nagar, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (v) The appellant 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 6.1.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant Fateh Singh with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 22.10.2024 passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge-II / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gautam Budh Nagar in Bail Application No.3368 of 2024 and release the appellant on bail in Complaint Case No.130 of 2022 under Sections 364, 420, 467, 468, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Bisrakh, District Gautam Budh Nagar.

2. Heard Sri Dileep Kumar, Senior Advocate assisted by S/Sri Rajrshi Gupta and Uma Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and perused the entire record.

3. The prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that about 8 - 9 years before, Ratan Pal, the husband of the informant-Smt. Bhagwati, was missing and a missing report was lodged at P.S. Bisrakh on 14.4.2003 and he was a recorded tenure holder of some agricultural land. Lekhpal Jagdish Sharma offered her to pay Rs.50,000/- for mutation in her name and out of which Rs.30,000/- was paid by the informant but subsequently she came to know that the name of Anuj Garg was mutated in place of her husband Ratan Pal and she was further informed by the Lekhpal aforesaid that the land was sold by her husband in favour of Anuj Garg on 29.9.2000 and Satish s/o Chhatra, Fateh Singh s/o Ratan, Gautam s/o Kartar and Sanjog s/o Kartar were the witnesses of the said said deed. The aforesaid persons are trying to take forcible possession of her land and in criminal conspiracy of all the accused persons, a false sale deed has been prepared and the land of the informant has been grabbed. After investigation, the police submitted closure report in the said matter and on protest filed by the informant, the protest petition was treated as a criminal complaint but the same was dismissed on the point of summoning by the Magistrate Court vide order dated 13.6.2018. However, the said order was challenged by way of revision, which was decided on 29.9.2021 and the matter was remanded back to the Magistrate Court and subsequently a fresh summoning order was passed on 31.10.2022 and the accused persons were summoned to face trial under Sections 364, 420, 467, 468, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is also submitted that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. It is further submitted that as per allegations made in the criminal complaint, no offence is made out against the present appellant. F.I.R. itself speaks that the sale deed was not executed in favour of the present appellant. It is further submitted that the appellant is neither the vendor nor the vendee in the said sale deed and no consideration has been passed in his favour. His name has been mentioned as a witness to the sale deed in the complaint itself. It is further submitted that the appellant has not taken the possession of any land of the informant. The money, if any, was given by the informant herself to Lekhpal Jagdish Sharma and the present appellant is not the beneficiary in this matter. It is also submitted that the appellant has no concern with the missing of the husband of the informant and no such police report is available on record. He has nothing to do with the Lekhpal Jagdish Sharma. It is also submitted that only on the basis of suspicion the present case has been initiated against the appellant. It is also submitted that the present matter in true sense is a civil dispute between the informant and Anuj Garg, the purchaser of the land. It is also submitted that Original Suit No.353 of 2015 was filed by the informant Smt. Bhagwati before the competent court at Gautam Budh Nagar and the said Suit was decreed in favour of the informant against the defendant Anuj Garg and the present appellant has nothing to do with the same. It is also submitted that the appellant is an old and infirm person suffering from the diseases of old age. It is also submitted that a pure civil dispute has been attempted to give colour of a criminal case by the informant of this case and since the original suit has been decided in favour of the informant, she in fact suffered with no monetary loss. It is further submitted that the appellant has no criminal history to his credit. It is further submitted that the learned Special Court did not consider the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record in right perspective and bail application was rejected in a cursory manner. It is further submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 22.10.2024. It is also submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.

6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.

9. Let the appellant Fateh Singh involved in Complaint Case No.130 of 2022 under Sections 364, 420, 467, 468, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Bisrakh, District Gautam Budh Nagar, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (v) The appellant 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 6.1.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad