Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Civil Secrett. Lko. And Another

1. Heard Sri Sanjai Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Avishesh Kumar Singh, the learned AGA for the State and Shri Ashish Raman Mishra, the learned counsel for the complainat.

3. On 18.05.2023, after hearing learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State, this court had passed the following order: "1. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Advocate on behalf of the opposite party No.2 is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and perused the record.

3. The present application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for anticipatory bail in Case Crime/FIR No. 0284 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case as applicants are claiming the property on the basis of Will deed executed by Late Ram Narayan Pandey on

09.01.1996. He further submitted that in accordance with the provision of Section 40 of the Registration Act, the aforesaid Will deed was registered in the Office of Deputy Registrar, Sadar, District Gonda on 20.11.2018, and thereafter, complaint was made, on which, inquiry was conducted. He next submitted that informant of the present case is claiming the succession of 2 ABAIL No. 1179 of 2023 Ram Narayan Pandey, on the basis of registered adoption deed dated

15.09.1994, Hibanama dated 08.12.1995 and registered Will deed dated

11.12.1995 in relation to different property, and thereafter, informant of the present case lodged FIR on the basis of incorrect facts only with intention to grab the property, which was transferred by way of Will deed by Ram Narayan Pandey in favour of applicants. He also submitted that initially investigation of the case in question was conducted and final report was submitted, and thereafter, on the protest, order for re-investigation was passed by the Competent Court and Investigating Officer in the most mechanical manner, added the Sections under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. He further submitted that prior to lodging of the FIR, suit for cancellation of Will deed dated 09.01.1996 was registered on 20.11.2018, the same was challenged before Civil Judge (Jr.D.) by the informant of the present case in Regular Suit No.140 of 2019, in which, temporary injunction was granted by the Competent Court on 01.03.2022, and thereafter, FIR of the case in question was lodged. He further submitted that applicants are ready to cooperate investigation, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted to them.

5. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 oppose the prayer of applicant and submitted that during the course of investigation, statement of Will deed writer, namely, Sudhir Kumar Singh s/o Late Jai Prakash Singh was recorded and he categorically stated that he prepared the Will deed on the insistence of Kaushal Kumar and others, but he was not aware that how this document is being used and neither he has seen Late Ram Narayan Pandey nor he made any signature or thumb impression before him.

6. Learned A.G.A. submitted that Deputy Registrar, Registration is also an accused in so many cases for registering such type of forged documents only with intention to give benefit to some persons. He next submitted that custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary, therefore, applicants are not entitled for bail.

7. Considering the argument of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the FIR as well as other relevant documents, it is undisputed fact that on the basis of lodging of the FIR, initially investigation was conducted and final report was submitted and there is no evidence that applicants have not cooperated in the investigation, and thereafter, on the basis of order of the Magistrate concerned, further investigation/re- investigation is going on as there is no evidence that applicants misused the liberty given by the Investigating Officer during the course of earlier investigation. Hence, I am of the view that the applicants are entitled for anticipatory bail.

8. In the event of arrest of the applicants, namely, Kaushal Kumar Pandey, Gyanendra Nath Pandey and Matsyendra Nath Pandey involved in the 3 ABAIL No. 1179 of 2023 aforesaid case, they shall be released forthwith by the Station House Officer of the police station concerned, on their furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with the following condition:- (i) That the accused-applicants shall make themselves available interrogation by police authorities as and when required and will cooperate with the investigation; (ii) That the accused-applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; and (iii) That the accused-applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. However, it is directed that the applicants will join and participate in each and every aspect of Investigation and will lend full assistance to the Investigating Agency, even with regard to 'discovery of fact' if and when required so by the Investigating Agency.

9. List this case on 05.07.2023 for final disposal.

10. In the meantime, A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 may file counter affidavit."

4. The State as well as the learned counsel for the complainant have filed counter affidavit but they did not point out any violation of the conditions of interim anticipatory bail by the applicant.

5. Several other co-accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail in the present case.

6. Nothing has come to light which may persuade this court to take a view, other than the view taken at the time of granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicant.

7. In view of above, the interim order dated 18.05.2023 is made absolute and the anticipatory bail application is allowed. September 10, 2025 -Amit K- (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Sanjai Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Avishesh Kumar Singh, the learned AGA for the State and Shri Ashish Raman Mishra, the learned counsel for the complainat.

3. On 18.05.2023, after hearing learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State, this court had passed the following order: "1. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Advocate on behalf of the opposite party No.2 is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and perused the record.

3. The present application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for anticipatory bail in Case Crime/FIR No. 0284 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case as applicants are claiming the property on the basis of Will deed executed by Late Ram Narayan Pandey on

09.01.1996. He further submitted that in accordance with the provision of Section 40 of the Registration Act, the aforesaid Will deed was registered in the Office of Deputy Registrar, Sadar, District Gonda on 20.11.2018, and thereafter, complaint was made, on which, inquiry was conducted. He next submitted that informant of the present case is claiming the succession of 2 ABAIL No. 1179 of 2023 Ram Narayan Pandey, on the basis of registered adoption deed dated

15.09.1994, Hibanama dated 08.12.1995 and registered Will deed dated

11.12.1995 in relation to different property, and thereafter, informant of the present case lodged FIR on the basis of incorrect facts only with intention to grab the property, which was transferred by way of Will deed by Ram Narayan Pandey in favour of applicants. He also submitted that initially investigation of the case in question was conducted and final report was submitted, and thereafter, on the protest, order for re-investigation was passed by the Competent Court and Investigating Officer in the most mechanical manner, added the Sections under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. He further submitted that prior to lodging of the FIR, suit for cancellation of Will deed dated 09.01.1996 was registered on 20.11.2018, the same was challenged before Civil Judge (Jr.D.) by the informant of the present case in Regular Suit No.140 of 2019, in which, temporary injunction was granted by the Competent Court on 01.03.2022, and thereafter, FIR of the case in question was lodged. He further submitted that applicants are ready to cooperate investigation, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted to them.

5. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 oppose the prayer of applicant and submitted that during the course of investigation, statement of Will deed writer, namely, Sudhir Kumar Singh s/o Late Jai Prakash Singh was recorded and he categorically stated that he prepared the Will deed on the insistence of Kaushal Kumar and others, but he was not aware that how this document is being used and neither he has seen Late Ram Narayan Pandey nor he made any signature or thumb impression before him.

6. Learned A.G.A. submitted that Deputy Registrar, Registration is also an accused in so many cases for registering such type of forged documents only with intention to give benefit to some persons. He next submitted that custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary, therefore, applicants are not entitled for bail.

7. Considering the argument of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the FIR as well as other relevant documents, it is undisputed fact that on the basis of lodging of the FIR, initially investigation was conducted and final report was submitted and there is no evidence that applicants have not cooperated in the investigation, and thereafter, on the basis of order of the Magistrate concerned, further investigation/re- investigation is going on as there is no evidence that applicants misused the liberty given by the Investigating Officer during the course of earlier investigation. Hence, I am of the view that the applicants are entitled for anticipatory bail.

8. In the event of arrest of the applicants, namely, Kaushal Kumar Pandey, Gyanendra Nath Pandey and Matsyendra Nath Pandey involved in the 3 ABAIL No. 1179 of 2023 aforesaid case, they shall be released forthwith by the Station House Officer of the police station concerned, on their furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with the following condition:- (i) That the accused-applicants shall make themselves available interrogation by police authorities as and when required and will cooperate with the investigation; (ii) That the accused-applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; and (iii) That the accused-applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. However, it is directed that the applicants will join and participate in each and every aspect of Investigation and will lend full assistance to the Investigating Agency, even with regard to 'discovery of fact' if and when required so by the Investigating Agency.

9. List this case on 05.07.2023 for final disposal.

10. In the meantime, A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 may file counter affidavit."

4. The State as well as the learned counsel for the complainant have filed counter affidavit but they did not point out any violation of the conditions of interim anticipatory bail by the applicant.

5. Several other co-accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail in the present case.

6. Nothing has come to light which may persuade this court to take a view, other than the view taken at the time of granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicant.

7. In view of above, the interim order dated 18.05.2023 is made absolute and the anticipatory bail application is allowed. September 10, 2025 -Amit K- (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench