Ajendra Kumar Sonkar v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. U.P

2. Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned AGA and Sri Romit Seth, learned counsel for the complainant are present.

3. The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by means of the following order passed on 27.05.2025: "Shri Romit Seth, Advocate has filed his 'vakalatnama' on behalf of complainant/informant, the same is taken on record. Heard Shri Mohammad Ehtesham Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Romit Seth, learned counsel appearing for the complainant/informant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant application has been moved by the applicant- Ajendra Kumar Sonkar in Case Crime No. 307 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Sitapur, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case. Learned counsel for the applicant while drawing the attention of this Court towards the various documents and the orders of the Revenue Court and other relevant documents, submits that the parties are litigating in the revenue courts pertaining to their rights which they are drawing from the deceased Jagdish Chandra, as the case of the applicant is that, Jagdish Chandra had executed a 'will' on 28.10.1978 in favour of his nephew Lalji Lal and thereafter the same was transferred by Shri Lalji Lal to 2 ABAIL No. 584 of 2025 Shamshuddin, Pramod Kumar Srivastava, Peer Mohammad and Shanti Devi and later on the above-mentioned purchasers have transferred this land by executing a sale- deed in favour of some other persons who in turn has executed an agreement to sell in favour of some other persons and it is of this agreement sell the applicant has stood a marginal witness. It is vehemently submitted that the dispute as of now is pending before a co-ordinate Bench of this Court as a Writ Petition bearing No. Writ-B- 387 of 2023 has been preferred by the informant and the rights of the parties are depending on the outcome of this writ petition and, therefore, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a dispute of civil nature and the same has been given the colour of criminal prosecution unnecessary. It is also submitted that applicant is not a beneficiary of any transaction or document and he has only stood a marginal witness in good faith and no other imputation has been attributed to him. He is ready to cooperate in the trial, as the charge sheet has already been submitted and would remain present before the trial court as and when his presence would be required and would not seek any adjournment especially when the prosecution witnesses would be in attendance. Learned A.G.A. as well as Shri Romit Seth, learned counsel appearing for the complainant/informant, however, opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant on the ground that the 'Chhail Bihari Trust' is the owner of the impugned land as a registered 'will' was executed by the deceased Jagdish Chandra in the favour of the 'Trust' and ultimately the decision with regard to the mutation of this land has been passed in favour of the 'Trust'. However, he could not dispute that a writ petition has been filed by the 'Trust' and the same is pending before a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Various other submissions have been raised by learned counsel for the complainant/informant in order to show that the applicant is having connivance with the other accused persons and he has not stood a marginal witness bonafidely. It is submitted that applicant is not cooperating during trial. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, there appears no necessity to go into the depth of the matter, as prima facie it appears to be a civil dispute pending between the parties. The 'Chhail Bihari Trust' as well as the other persons who have executed the impugned agreement to sell of which the applicant has stood as a marginal witness are drawing their title from Jagdish Chandra and the said dispute is yet to be finally settled in the writ petition, which has been filed by none other than the informant of this case, namely, 'Chhail Bihari Trust'. Thus, without commenting anything on the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the admitted position that the applicant is not appearing to be the beneficiary of any transaction, the discretion may be exercised in his favour in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. 3 ABAIL No. 584 of 2025 State of Maharashtra : (2011) 1 SCC 694, Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1 and in Nathu Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others':(2021)6 SCC 64, moreso when he is not having any criminal antecedents. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the record, this Court finds it to be a fit case of interim anticipatory bail. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the that the liberty of the applicant may be protected in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98. In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant- Ajendra Kumar Sonkar shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid Case Crime number on his 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 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 tamper with the evidence; (ii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iii)The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; (iv)The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; (v) In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail; Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed. Connect and list this case with Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application Under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No. 381 of 2025. Objections may be filed in the meantime. Office is directed to obtain status report from trial court with regard to any impediment being caused by the applicant in early disposal of case crime No. 307 of 2022 registered in police station Kotwali, District Sitapur. The said report shall be placed on record by the next date of listing. "

4. As per report dated 30.06.2025 sent by the CJM, a non-bailable warrant has been issued against co-accused Haneef but the learned counsel for the complainant informs the Court that Haneef is already dead. 4 ABAIL No. 584 of 2025

5. The opposite party no. 2 as well as the State have chosen not to file counter affidavit, opposing the anticipatory bail application.

6. In these circumstances, this Court finds no good ground to take a view different from the view taken by a Coordinate bench of this Court on 27.05.2025 granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.

7. In view of above, the interim order dated 27.05.2025 is made absolute and the anticipatory bail application is allowed. September 15, 2025 Anurag (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned AGA and Sri Romit Seth, learned counsel for the complainant are present.

3. The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by means of the following order passed on 27.05.2025: "Shri Romit Seth, Advocate has filed his 'vakalatnama' on behalf of complainant/informant, the same is taken on record. Heard Shri Mohammad Ehtesham Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Romit Seth, learned counsel appearing for the complainant/informant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant application has been moved by the applicant- Ajendra Kumar Sonkar in Case Crime No. 307 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Sitapur, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case. Learned counsel for the applicant while drawing the attention of this Court towards the various documents and the orders of the Revenue Court and other relevant documents, submits that the parties are litigating in the revenue courts pertaining to their rights which they are drawing from the deceased Jagdish Chandra, as the case of the applicant is that, Jagdish Chandra had executed a 'will' on 28.10.1978 in favour of his nephew Lalji Lal and thereafter the same was transferred by Shri Lalji Lal to 2 ABAIL No. 584 of 2025 Shamshuddin, Pramod Kumar Srivastava, Peer Mohammad and Shanti Devi and later on the above-mentioned purchasers have transferred this land by executing a sale- deed in favour of some other persons who in turn has executed an agreement to sell in favour of some other persons and it is of this agreement sell the applicant has stood a marginal witness. It is vehemently submitted that the dispute as of now is pending before a co-ordinate Bench of this Court as a Writ Petition bearing No. Writ-B- 387 of 2023 has been preferred by the informant and the rights of the parties are depending on the outcome of this writ petition and, therefore, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a dispute of civil nature and the same has been given the colour of criminal prosecution unnecessary. It is also submitted that applicant is not a beneficiary of any transaction or document and he has only stood a marginal witness in good faith and no other imputation has been attributed to him. He is ready to cooperate in the trial, as the charge sheet has already been submitted and would remain present before the trial court as and when his presence would be required and would not seek any adjournment especially when the prosecution witnesses would be in attendance. Learned A.G.A. as well as Shri Romit Seth, learned counsel appearing for the complainant/informant, however, opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant on the ground that the 'Chhail Bihari Trust' is the owner of the impugned land as a registered 'will' was executed by the deceased Jagdish Chandra in the favour of the 'Trust' and ultimately the decision with regard to the mutation of this land has been passed in favour of the 'Trust'. However, he could not dispute that a writ petition has been filed by the 'Trust' and the same is pending before a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Various other submissions have been raised by learned counsel for the complainant/informant in order to show that the applicant is having connivance with the other accused persons and he has not stood a marginal witness bonafidely. It is submitted that applicant is not cooperating during trial. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, there appears no necessity to go into the depth of the matter, as prima facie it appears to be a civil dispute pending between the parties. The 'Chhail Bihari Trust' as well as the other persons who have executed the impugned agreement to sell of which the applicant has stood as a marginal witness are drawing their title from Jagdish Chandra and the said dispute is yet to be finally settled in the writ petition, which has been filed by none other than the informant of this case, namely, 'Chhail Bihari Trust'. Thus, without commenting anything on the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the admitted position that the applicant is not appearing to be the beneficiary of any transaction, the discretion may be exercised in his favour in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. 3 ABAIL No. 584 of 2025 State of Maharashtra : (2011) 1 SCC 694, Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1 and in Nathu Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others':(2021)6 SCC 64, moreso when he is not having any criminal antecedents. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the record, this Court finds it to be a fit case of interim anticipatory bail. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the that the liberty of the applicant may be protected in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98. In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant- Ajendra Kumar Sonkar shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid Case Crime number on his 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 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 tamper with the evidence; (ii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iii)The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; (iv)The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; (v) In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail; Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed. Connect and list this case with Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application Under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No. 381 of 2025. Objections may be filed in the meantime. Office is directed to obtain status report from trial court with regard to any impediment being caused by the applicant in early disposal of case crime No. 307 of 2022 registered in police station Kotwali, District Sitapur. The said report shall be placed on record by the next date of listing. "

4. As per report dated 30.06.2025 sent by the CJM, a non-bailable warrant has been issued against co-accused Haneef but the learned counsel for the complainant informs the Court that Haneef is already dead. 4 ABAIL No. 584 of 2025

5. The opposite party no. 2 as well as the State have chosen not to file counter affidavit, opposing the anticipatory bail application.

6. In these circumstances, this Court finds no good ground to take a view different from the view taken by a Coordinate bench of this Court on 27.05.2025 granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.

7. In view of above, the interim order dated 27.05.2025 is made absolute and the anticipatory bail application is allowed. September 15, 2025 Anurag (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench