High Court · 2025

2. Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant Sandeep Shukla @ Bauwan, Sri Deepak Singh, learned counsel for the applicants Vivek Kumar Pandey @ Sonu Pandey and Ali Abbas, Sri Saghir Ahmad, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant Jitesh Jha and Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

3. The instant bail applications have been filed seeking release of the applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 156 of 2024 under Sections 329(4), 61(2), 111(2)(Kha), 111(3), 3(5), B.N.S. and Section 3/5 of The Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act,1984, Police Station Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar during pendency of the trial.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged by Lekhpal on 28.07.2024 at 20:36 hours against applicants Sandeep Shukla @ Bauwan, Jitesh Jha and Ali Abbas and others under Sections 329(4) B.N.S. and Section 3/5 The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and according to the FIR on

28.07.2024 at about 10:15 AM in the morning nominated accused persons along with their unknown associates tried to take possession over the Nazool land.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that initially FIR of the present case was lodged only under Section 329(4) B.N.S. and 3/5 Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act but during investigation offences under Section 61(2), 111(2)b and 111(3) B.N.S. were added.

6. They further submitted, even as per allegation, applicants only made attempt to take possession over the Nazool land and there is no allegation that they took possession over the property in question.

7. They further submitted, during investigation however Investigating Officer observed that applicants were members of crime syndicate and they committed the organized crime under Section 111 B.N.S. but it is not a case of organized crime.

8. They further submitted, actually present dispute is purely civil dispute and with regard to property in question number of civil suits are pending 2 of 7 and this fact is evident from Parcha No. 82 of case diary dated 22.10.2024 which has been annexed as Annexure-7 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application filed by the applicant Sandeep Shukla @ Bauwan.

9. They further submitted, with regard to the same dispute a separate FIR was also lodged against applicants and others at Case Crime No. 157 of 2024 at P.S. Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar with almost similar allegations and this fact suggests that district administration is highly inimical with the applicants and with regard to same incident two separate FIRs were lodged. One lodged by the Lekhpal (FIR of the present case) and another lodged by an individual namely Samuel Gurudev Singh.

10. They further submitted that with regard to property in question a civil suit has also been filed by Samuel Gurudev Singh, the informant of Case Crime No. 157 of 2024 as Civil Suit No. 2023 of 2019 in which an order of status-quo has been passed by the competent civil court till disposal of the suit and order dated 27.10.2022 passed by the civil court has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application filed by the applicant Jitesh Jha.

11. They further submitted, the property in question is still in possession of applicants side and Government did not take possession over the property. They further submitted, even if the lease was expired then also applicants side cannot be forcibly dispossessed.

12. They further submitted, if a person who was having possession over the Nazool land then even after expiry of its lease, he can only be dispossessed by suit of eviction and as earlier lease was in favour of the applicants side, therefore, it cannot be said that they were member of crime syndicate and they tried to take possession over the Government land (Nazool land).

13. They further submitted, applicants Jitesh Jha, Sandeep Shukla @ Bauwan and Ali Abbas were not having any previous criminal history but along with present matter they have simultaneously been made accused 3 of 7 with regard to same incident in the case relates to Case Crime No. 157 of

2024. However, learned counsel for applicant Vivek Kumar Pandey @ Sonu Pandey submitted, apart from the present case and case relates to Case Crime No. 157 of 2024 he was also having criminal history of one another case but his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application.

14. They further submitted, applicants Jitesh Jha, Ali Abbas and Vivek Kumar Pandey @ Sonu Pandey are in jail in the present matter since September, 2024 while applicant Sandeep Shukla @ Bauwan is in jail since August, 2024.

15. They further submitted, therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, applicants should be enlarged on bail.

16. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted applicants are active member of crime syndicate and they committed organized crime and even if they tried to take possession over the Nazool land, which was Government land, then also it cannot be said that they did not commit the organized crime but he could not dispute the fact that with regard to property in question Samuel Gurdev Singh has filed a civil suit which is still pending and in that suit status quo order has been passed by the competent civil court.

17. Learned AAG further could not dispute the fact that in the civil suit filed by the Samuel Gurdev Singh (informant of the Case Crime No. 157 of 2024) he admitted the fact that applicants are in possession over the property in question, however, learned AAG further pointed out that as property in question was Nazool land and lease of that property had already expired, therefore, Government was necessary party in civil suit but without impleading the Government in the civil suit, the status quo order has passed but he could not dispute the fact that civil suit was not filed by the applicants side.

18. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. 4 of 7

19. From the record, it reflects that initially FIR of the present case was lodged against applicants and others (excluding applicant Vivek Kumar Pandey @ Sonu Pandey) under Section 329(4) B.N.S. and 3/5 The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act with the allegation that applicants tried to take possession over the Nazool land after expiry of its lease but it appears, subsequently during investigation offences under Section 61(2), 111 B.N.S. were added.

20. However, as per prosecution, applicants are members of crime syndicate and they committed the organized crime but record also suggests that with regard to property in question some civil suits are pending including civil suit filed by one Samuel Gurudev Singh (informant of Case Crime No. 157 of 2024) and in the civil suit filed by Samuel Gurudev Singh an order of status-quo has been passed by the competent civil court. Record also suggests that in the plaint of that suit Samuel Gurudev Singh categorically stated that applicants side were in possession over the property.

21. Further, even as per allegation made in the FIR, applicants only made attempt to take possession over the property. Further, considering the fact that civil suits are pending and status-quo order has also been passed by the competent civil court, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicants that prima facie, it appears to be a case of civil dispute cannot be ruled out at this stage.

22. Further, record also suggests that with regard to same incident another FIR was also lodged by Samuel Gurudev Singh as Case Crime No. 157 of 2024 and except this case and present case, applicants are not having any criminal history (except applicant Vivek Kumar Pandey @ Sonu Pandey).

23. Further, however applicant Vivek Kumar Pandey @ Sonu Pandey is having criminal history of one another case but his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application. 5 of 7

24. Further, record also suggests that after investigation charge-sheet has already been filed against applicants and applicant Sandeep Shukla @ Bauwan is in jail for more than six months while rest of applicants are in jail for last more than five months.

25. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application should not be withheld for punitive purpose.

26. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicants are entitled to be released on bail.

27. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail applications are allowed.

28. Let the applicants - Sandeep Shukla @ Bauwan, Jitesh Jha, Vivek Kumar Pandey @ Sonu Pandey and Ali Abbas be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless their personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

29. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicants.

30. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and 6 of 7 the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 19.03.2025 AK Pandey ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 7 of 7

2. Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant Sandeep Shukla @ Bauwan, Sri Deepak Singh, learned counsel for the applicants Vivek Kumar Pandey @ Sonu Pandey and Ali Abbas, Sri Saghir Ahmad, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant Jitesh Jha and Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

3. The instant bail applications have been filed seeking release of the applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 156 of 2024 under Sections 329(4), 61(2), 111(2)(Kha), 111(3), 3(5), B.N.S. and Section 3/5 of The Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act,1984, Police Station Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar during pendency of the trial.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged by Lekhpal on 28.07.2024 at 20:36 hours against applicants Sandeep Shukla @ Bauwan, Jitesh Jha and Ali Abbas and others under Sections 329(4) B.N.S. and Section 3/5 The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and according to the FIR on

28.07.2024 at about 10:15 AM in the morning nominated accused persons along with their unknown associates tried to take possession over the Nazool land.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that initially FIR of the present case was lodged only under Section 329(4) B.N.S. and 3/5 Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act but during investigation offences under Section 61(2), 111(2)b and 111(3) B.N.S. were added.

6. They further submitted, even as per allegation, applicants only made attempt to take possession over the Nazool land and there is no allegation that they took possession over the property in question.

7. They further submitted, during investigation however Investigating Officer observed that applicants were members of crime syndicate and they committed the organized crime under Section 111 B.N.S. but it is not a case of organized crime.

8. They further submitted, actually present dispute is purely civil dispute and with regard to property in question number of civil suits are pending 2 of 7 and this fact is evident from Parcha No. 82 of case diary dated 22.10.2024 which has been annexed as Annexure-7 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application filed by the applicant Sandeep Shukla @ Bauwan.

9. They further submitted, with regard to the same dispute a separate FIR was also lodged against applicants and others at Case Crime No. 157 of 2024 at P.S. Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar with almost similar allegations and this fact suggests that district administration is highly inimical with the applicants and with regard to same incident two separate FIRs were lodged. One lodged by the Lekhpal (FIR of the present case) and another lodged by an individual namely Samuel Gurudev Singh.

10. They further submitted that with regard to property in question a civil suit has also been filed by Samuel Gurudev Singh, the informant of Case Crime No. 157 of 2024 as Civil Suit No. 2023 of 2019 in which an order of status-quo has been passed by the competent civil court till disposal of the suit and order dated 27.10.2022 passed by the civil court has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application filed by the applicant Jitesh Jha.

11. They further submitted, the property in question is still in possession of applicants side and Government did not take possession over the property. They further submitted, even if the lease was expired then also applicants side cannot be forcibly dispossessed.

12. They further submitted, if a person who was having possession over the Nazool land then even after expiry of its lease, he can only be dispossessed by suit of eviction and as earlier lease was in favour of the applicants side, therefore, it cannot be said that they were member of crime syndicate and they tried to take possession over the Government land (Nazool land).

13. They further submitted, applicants Jitesh Jha, Sandeep Shukla @ Bauwan and Ali Abbas were not having any previous criminal history but along with present matter they have simultaneously been made accused 3 of 7 with regard to same incident in the case relates to Case Crime No. 157 of

2024. However, learned counsel for applicant Vivek Kumar Pandey @ Sonu Pandey submitted, apart from the present case and case relates to Case Crime No. 157 of 2024 he was also having criminal history of one another case but his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application.

14. They further submitted, applicants Jitesh Jha, Ali Abbas and Vivek Kumar Pandey @ Sonu Pandey are in jail in the present matter since September, 2024 while applicant Sandeep Shukla @ Bauwan is in jail since August, 2024.

15. They further submitted, therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, applicants should be enlarged on bail.

16. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted applicants are active member of crime syndicate and they committed organized crime and even if they tried to take possession over the Nazool land, which was Government land, then also it cannot be said that they did not commit the organized crime but he could not dispute the fact that with regard to property in question Samuel Gurdev Singh has filed a civil suit which is still pending and in that suit status quo order has been passed by the competent civil court.

17. Learned AAG further could not dispute the fact that in the civil suit filed by the Samuel Gurdev Singh (informant of the Case Crime No. 157 of 2024) he admitted the fact that applicants are in possession over the property in question, however, learned AAG further pointed out that as property in question was Nazool land and lease of that property had already expired, therefore, Government was necessary party in civil suit but without impleading the Government in the civil suit, the status quo order has passed but he could not dispute the fact that civil suit was not filed by the applicants side.

18. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. 4 of 7

19. From the record, it reflects that initially FIR of the present case was lodged against applicants and others (excluding applicant Vivek Kumar Pandey @ Sonu Pandey) under Section 329(4) B.N.S. and 3/5 The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act with the allegation that applicants tried to take possession over the Nazool land after expiry of its lease but it appears, subsequently during investigation offences under Section 61(2), 111 B.N.S. were added.

20. However, as per prosecution, applicants are members of crime syndicate and they committed the organized crime but record also suggests that with regard to property in question some civil suits are pending including civil suit filed by one Samuel Gurudev Singh (informant of Case Crime No. 157 of 2024) and in the civil suit filed by Samuel Gurudev Singh an order of status-quo has been passed by the competent civil court. Record also suggests that in the plaint of that suit Samuel Gurudev Singh categorically stated that applicants side were in possession over the property.

21. Further, even as per allegation made in the FIR, applicants only made attempt to take possession over the property. Further, considering the fact that civil suits are pending and status-quo order has also been passed by the competent civil court, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicants that prima facie, it appears to be a case of civil dispute cannot be ruled out at this stage.

22. Further, record also suggests that with regard to same incident another FIR was also lodged by Samuel Gurudev Singh as Case Crime No. 157 of 2024 and except this case and present case, applicants are not having any criminal history (except applicant Vivek Kumar Pandey @ Sonu Pandey).

23. Further, however applicant Vivek Kumar Pandey @ Sonu Pandey is having criminal history of one another case but his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application. 5 of 7

24. Further, record also suggests that after investigation charge-sheet has already been filed against applicants and applicant Sandeep Shukla @ Bauwan is in jail for more than six months while rest of applicants are in jail for last more than five months.

25. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application should not be withheld for punitive purpose.

26. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicants are entitled to be released on bail.

27. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail applications are allowed.

28. Let the applicants - Sandeep Shukla @ Bauwan, Jitesh Jha, Vivek Kumar Pandey @ Sonu Pandey and Ali Abbas be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless their personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

29. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicants.

30. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and 6 of 7 the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 19.03.2025 AK Pandey ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 7 of 7