High Court · 2025

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court towards the order dated 11.07.2025 passed in CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 772 of 2025, whereby this Court granted interim protection to the applicant. It was clearly stipulated that the said protection shall remain in force, subject to the outcome of Case No. 798/2022, until the anticipatory bail application pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow, is decided. The order dated 11.07.2025 is extracted below:- "Heard Sri Ayodhya Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. The present bail application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No.798/2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC, P.S. Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow. In the prosecution case it is alleged that an F.I.R. has been lodged by the Deputy Secretary of the Lucknow Development Authority regarding forgery committed in the sale of House No.3/583 Vaastukhand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow wherein it is alleged that one Santram Maurya vide sale deed dated 23.10.2018 has sold this house to one Jeet Bahadur wherein it has been stated by seller that this property has been registered by the Lucknow Development Authority in his name on 29.09.2000. It is alleged that this claim of the seller is forged. The seller and purchaser in connivance with an employee of the Lucknow Development Authority namely Kuldeep Kumar, Junior Clerk who by committing forgery has shown this house in the computer records of the Lucknow Development Authority. The entire conspiracy has been done to usurp aforesaid house. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that charge-sheet in the case has been filed against some accused persons. The applicant is neither named in the F.I.R. nor in the charge-sheet. Even while filing the charge- sheet, the role of the applicant could not be defined. Prior to this, in Case Crime No.797/2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, P.S. Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail in Bail No.720 of 2025 vide order dated 27.06.2025. He submits that in order to nullify this interim bail granted to the applicant, the Investigating Officer illegally sent a notice under Section 41-A thereafter, hurriedly obtained non-bailable warrant only to put the applicant behind the bars although the applicant is no way connected in this matter. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that he will cooperate in the investigation. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant however, upon a query made by the court could not show from the case diary as to what is the role of the applicant. He further submits that although the charge-sheet has been filed against the accused persons however, against the applicant investigation is pending. Perused the record. Prima faice, it appears that till filing of the charge-sheet, the prosecution could not assign any specific or general role to the applicant. Applicant has explained the criminal history. The offences are triable by magistrate, this anticipatory bail application is against the rejection order by which his interim anticipatory bail application has been rejected by the learned sessions court however, the final anticipatory bail of the applicant is still pending before the learned sessions court. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by the parties so also considering the nature of accusation and the fact that no specific or general role has been assigned to the applicant, applicant has explained the criminal history, offences are triable by magistrate, coupled with the undertaking given by the applicant that he will cooperate in the investigation, it would be expedient in the interest of justice 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-Vijay Pal Singh 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 arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned with the following conditions:- (1) The applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer within seven days from the date of receipt of copy of this order who shall be enlarged on interim anticipatory bail by the Investigating Officer. (2) The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witnesses. (3) The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/1.O./S.H.O. concerned call (s) for investigation/interrogation. (4) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. (5) In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection. The application stands allowed. It is made clear that the anticipatory bail granted to the applicant shall be subject to the further outcome of Case No.798 of 2022 wherein anticipatory bail application of the applicant is pending before the learned sessions judge, Lucknow." Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn attention of the Court towards the order dated 18.07.2025, wherein the Investigating Officer has acknowledged that the applicant's statement has been recorded in the present case. It has also been submitted that the applicant has furnished sureties before the Investigating Officer. It is further submitted that, instead of adjudicating the anticipatory bail application on merits, the learned Sessions Judge compelled the applicant to withdraw the same. On the other hand, learned A.G.A., relying on the case record, has opposed the anticipatory bail application. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present anticipatory bail application is disposed of with a direction to the learned Sessions Court, Lucknow, to decide the applicant’s anticipatory bail application on merits within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In the meantime, the interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 11.07.2025 passed in CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 772 of 2025 shall remain in operation until the disposal of the anticipatory bail application on merits. Order Date :- 31.7.2025 R.C. RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court towards the order dated 11.07.2025 passed in CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 772 of 2025, whereby this Court granted interim protection to the applicant. It was clearly stipulated that the said protection shall remain in force, subject to the outcome of Case No. 798/2022, until the anticipatory bail application pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow, is decided. The order dated 11.07.2025 is extracted below:- "Heard Sri Ayodhya Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. The present bail application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No.798/2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC, P.S. Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow. In the prosecution case it is alleged that an F.I.R. has been lodged by the Deputy Secretary of the Lucknow Development Authority regarding forgery committed in the sale of House No.3/583 Vaastukhand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow wherein it is alleged that one Santram Maurya vide sale deed dated 23.10.2018 has sold this house to one Jeet Bahadur wherein it has been stated by seller that this property has been registered by the Lucknow Development Authority in his name on 29.09.2000. It is alleged that this claim of the seller is forged. The seller and purchaser in connivance with an employee of the Lucknow Development Authority namely Kuldeep Kumar, Junior Clerk who by committing forgery has shown this house in the computer records of the Lucknow Development Authority. The entire conspiracy has been done to usurp aforesaid house. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that charge-sheet in the case has been filed against some accused persons. The applicant is neither named in the F.I.R. nor in the charge-sheet. Even while filing the charge- sheet, the role of the applicant could not be defined. Prior to this, in Case Crime No.797/2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, P.S. Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail in Bail No.720 of 2025 vide order dated 27.06.2025. He submits that in order to nullify this interim bail granted to the applicant, the Investigating Officer illegally sent a notice under Section 41-A thereafter, hurriedly obtained non-bailable warrant only to put the applicant behind the bars although the applicant is no way connected in this matter. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that he will cooperate in the investigation. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant however, upon a query made by the court could not show from the case diary as to what is the role of the applicant. He further submits that although the charge-sheet has been filed against the accused persons however, against the applicant investigation is pending. Perused the record. Prima faice, it appears that till filing of the charge-sheet, the prosecution could not assign any specific or general role to the applicant. Applicant has explained the criminal history. The offences are triable by magistrate, this anticipatory bail application is against the rejection order by which his interim anticipatory bail application has been rejected by the learned sessions court however, the final anticipatory bail of the applicant is still pending before the learned sessions court. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by the parties so also considering the nature of accusation and the fact that no specific or general role has been assigned to the applicant, applicant has explained the criminal history, offences are triable by magistrate, coupled with the undertaking given by the applicant that he will cooperate in the investigation, it would be expedient in the interest of justice 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-Vijay Pal Singh 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 arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned with the following conditions:- (1) The applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer within seven days from the date of receipt of copy of this order who shall be enlarged on interim anticipatory bail by the Investigating Officer. (2) The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witnesses. (3) The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/1.O./S.H.O. concerned call (s) for investigation/interrogation. (4) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. (5) In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection. The application stands allowed. It is made clear that the anticipatory bail granted to the applicant shall be subject to the further outcome of Case No.798 of 2022 wherein anticipatory bail application of the applicant is pending before the learned sessions judge, Lucknow." Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn attention of the Court towards the order dated 18.07.2025, wherein the Investigating Officer has acknowledged that the applicant's statement has been recorded in the present case. It has also been submitted that the applicant has furnished sureties before the Investigating Officer. It is further submitted that, instead of adjudicating the anticipatory bail application on merits, the learned Sessions Judge compelled the applicant to withdraw the same. On the other hand, learned A.G.A., relying on the case record, has opposed the anticipatory bail application. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present anticipatory bail application is disposed of with a direction to the learned Sessions Court, Lucknow, to decide the applicant’s anticipatory bail application on merits within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In the meantime, the interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 11.07.2025 passed in CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 772 of 2025 shall remain in operation until the disposal of the anticipatory bail application on merits. Order Date :- 31.7.2025 R.C. RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench