High Court · 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and Sri Santosh Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the informant.

2. The second bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.343 of 2021 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC, P.S. P.G.I, District Lucknow.

3. In fact, on 19.03.2025 following order had been passed:- "1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1 and Mr. Santosh Kumar Jha, learned counsel for informant and perused the record. Counter affidavit on behalf of State and rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit of informant filed today is taken on record.

2. Second bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.343 of 2021, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 & 120-B IPC, Police Station P.G.I. Lucknow. First bail application has been rejected by means of order dated 15.05.2024 on the ground that considering the allegations made in the FIR that amount was paid through bank channels and was siphoned off by the applicant coupled with the fact that applicant has criminal history of seven cases.

3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant is under incarceration since 13.06.2022 and despite rejection of first bail application, trial is at a stand still with only charges having been framed without evidence commencing. It is therefore submitted that applicant cannot be kept interminably under incarceration. It is also submitted that while rejecting the first bail application, this Court has failed to consider the fact that allegations levelled in the first information report are indicative of the fact that criminal colour is being sought to be given to a purely commercial transaction as has been recorded earlier by Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.10.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.17168 (MB) of 2021 which was filed by applicant earlier seeking quashing of FIR.

4. It is further submitted that the earlier order rejecting first bail application has also not taken into consideration the allegations levelled in the first information report wherein it has been specifically indicated that the applicant at all times has clearly indicated to the informant that he did not have any title over the property sought to be transferred to the informant. It has further been submitted that in the earlier order rejecting first bail application, this Court has also failed to consider the fact that FIR has been lodged under Sections 406 and 420 IPC simultaneously, which cannot be done in the light of judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited and others versus State of U.P & Ors. Criminal Appeal No.2114 of 2022.

5. Learned counsel for opposite parties have opposed second bail application with the submission that the earlier order dated 15.05.2024 rejecting first bail application is self-evident to the effect that allegations levelled in the FIR regarding applicants siphoning off the amount paid by the informant is evident as is the fact that the applicant has a criminal history of seven cases. It is submitted that the applicant in fact had defrauded not only the informant but also Awas Ewam Vikas Parishad as well as Punjab National Bank with regard to false transaction.

6. Learned counsel for opposite party also submits that even after stay of arrest of applicant, he misused the liberty and surrendered only after proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. were initiated.

7. With regard to such a submission, learned AGA is granted a week's time to obtain instructions as to whether the applicant had surrendered in pursuance of any proceedings initiated under Section 82 Cr.P.C.

8. List this case on 28.03.2025 at 02.15 P.M."

4. In pursuance thereof, counter affidavit on behalf of complainant as well as rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the State are taken on record.

5. It has been submitted that earlier in the aforesaid aspect, the charge sheet has been filed on 08.12.2021, thereafter proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. had been issued on 12.04.2022 and subsequently application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing No.3520 of 2022 was filed by the applicant before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 07.03.2022 granting liberty to the applicant to surrender before the court concerned within a period of 15 days and apply for bail. It is submitted that in pursuance thereof, the applicant surrendered on 13.06.2022 and remained under custody since that day.

6. It is submitted that after rejection of first bail on 15.05.2024, the trial is at a standstill with only charges having yet been framed. It is therefore, submitted that the applicant having been under incarceration for almost two years without trial having commenced and seven prosecution witnesses yet to be examined, there is no hope of any early conclusion of trial.

7. It is also submitted that the aspect of forgery being related to an unregistered agreement to sell, even otherwise does not confer any title on any person and therefore, the aspect of forgery is not made out.

8. Learned A.G.A. has been provided written instructions in this matter dated 09.04.2025 which is taken on record and as per which, there are nine prosecution witnesses with evidence yet to commence.

9. Learned counsel for complainant has opposed bail application with the submission that since money was extracted from the informant on the pretext that sale deed would be executed once the property is sold to the applicant by the Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, but with the applicant is not making any deposit with the Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, the sections impugned against the applicant with regard to misleading and deceiving the informant are clearly made out. It is also submitted that even otherwise since the applicant has surrendered only after issuance of proclamation under Section 482 Cr.P.C., he is not entitled to any relief. It is also submitted that the aspect of sections 468 and 471 IPC being made out against the applicant is different from civil aspect of the matter.

10. It is further submitted that during the course of trial, wife of applicant passed away on 26.04.2024 but information with regard to same was provided only by the complainant and not the applicant thereby delaying the proceedings.

11. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, it appears that first bail application was rejected vide order dated 15.05.2024 on merits of the issue.

12. As per instructions provided to learned A.G.A., there are nine prosecution witnesses with evidence yet to commence. The applicant is under incarceration since 13.06.2022 and his previous criminal history has already been explained. The aspect of applicant surrendering after proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. looses its relevance once he surrendered in pursuance of directions issued by this Court in application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The aspect of any conferment of title on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell, thereby inviting criminal prosecution is subject matter of trial upon evidence being led.

13. In view of discussions made herein above, it is evident that there is no hope of any early conclusion of trial. Any conferment of title by agreement to sell being an aspect to be considered, this Court finds the applicant to be released on bail.

14. Accordingly bail application is allowed.

15. Let applicant-Jagat Narain Shukla involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 BNS. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 BNSS is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 BNS. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

16. The trial court is directed to expedite the proceedings. Order Date :- 10.4.2025 Renu/- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and Sri Santosh Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the informant.

2. The second bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.343 of 2021 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC, P.S. P.G.I, District Lucknow.

3. In fact, on 19.03.2025 following order had been passed:- "1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1 and Mr. Santosh Kumar Jha, learned counsel for informant and perused the record. Counter affidavit on behalf of State and rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit of informant filed today is taken on record.

2. Second bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.343 of 2021, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 & 120-B IPC, Police Station P.G.I. Lucknow. First bail application has been rejected by means of order dated 15.05.2024 on the ground that considering the allegations made in the FIR that amount was paid through bank channels and was siphoned off by the applicant coupled with the fact that applicant has criminal history of seven cases.

3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant is under incarceration since 13.06.2022 and despite rejection of first bail application, trial is at a stand still with only charges having been framed without evidence commencing. It is therefore submitted that applicant cannot be kept interminably under incarceration. It is also submitted that while rejecting the first bail application, this Court has failed to consider the fact that allegations levelled in the first information report are indicative of the fact that criminal colour is being sought to be given to a purely commercial transaction as has been recorded earlier by Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.10.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.17168 (MB) of 2021 which was filed by applicant earlier seeking quashing of FIR.

4. It is further submitted that the earlier order rejecting first bail application has also not taken into consideration the allegations levelled in the first information report wherein it has been specifically indicated that the applicant at all times has clearly indicated to the informant that he did not have any title over the property sought to be transferred to the informant. It has further been submitted that in the earlier order rejecting first bail application, this Court has also failed to consider the fact that FIR has been lodged under Sections 406 and 420 IPC simultaneously, which cannot be done in the light of judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited and others versus State of U.P & Ors. Criminal Appeal No.2114 of 2022.

5. Learned counsel for opposite parties have opposed second bail application with the submission that the earlier order dated 15.05.2024 rejecting first bail application is self-evident to the effect that allegations levelled in the FIR regarding applicants siphoning off the amount paid by the informant is evident as is the fact that the applicant has a criminal history of seven cases. It is submitted that the applicant in fact had defrauded not only the informant but also Awas Ewam Vikas Parishad as well as Punjab National Bank with regard to false transaction.

6. Learned counsel for opposite party also submits that even after stay of arrest of applicant, he misused the liberty and surrendered only after proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. were initiated.

7. With regard to such a submission, learned AGA is granted a week's time to obtain instructions as to whether the applicant had surrendered in pursuance of any proceedings initiated under Section 82 Cr.P.C.

8. List this case on 28.03.2025 at 02.15 P.M."

4. In pursuance thereof, counter affidavit on behalf of complainant as well as rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the State are taken on record.

5. It has been submitted that earlier in the aforesaid aspect, the charge sheet has been filed on 08.12.2021, thereafter proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. had been issued on 12.04.2022 and subsequently application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing No.3520 of 2022 was filed by the applicant before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 07.03.2022 granting liberty to the applicant to surrender before the court concerned within a period of 15 days and apply for bail. It is submitted that in pursuance thereof, the applicant surrendered on 13.06.2022 and remained under custody since that day.

6. It is submitted that after rejection of first bail on 15.05.2024, the trial is at a standstill with only charges having yet been framed. It is therefore, submitted that the applicant having been under incarceration for almost two years without trial having commenced and seven prosecution witnesses yet to be examined, there is no hope of any early conclusion of trial.

7. It is also submitted that the aspect of forgery being related to an unregistered agreement to sell, even otherwise does not confer any title on any person and therefore, the aspect of forgery is not made out.

8. Learned A.G.A. has been provided written instructions in this matter dated 09.04.2025 which is taken on record and as per which, there are nine prosecution witnesses with evidence yet to commence.

9. Learned counsel for complainant has opposed bail application with the submission that since money was extracted from the informant on the pretext that sale deed would be executed once the property is sold to the applicant by the Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, but with the applicant is not making any deposit with the Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, the sections impugned against the applicant with regard to misleading and deceiving the informant are clearly made out. It is also submitted that even otherwise since the applicant has surrendered only after issuance of proclamation under Section 482 Cr.P.C., he is not entitled to any relief. It is also submitted that the aspect of sections 468 and 471 IPC being made out against the applicant is different from civil aspect of the matter.

10. It is further submitted that during the course of trial, wife of applicant passed away on 26.04.2024 but information with regard to same was provided only by the complainant and not the applicant thereby delaying the proceedings.

11. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, it appears that first bail application was rejected vide order dated 15.05.2024 on merits of the issue.

12. As per instructions provided to learned A.G.A., there are nine prosecution witnesses with evidence yet to commence. The applicant is under incarceration since 13.06.2022 and his previous criminal history has already been explained. The aspect of applicant surrendering after proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. looses its relevance once he surrendered in pursuance of directions issued by this Court in application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The aspect of any conferment of title on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell, thereby inviting criminal prosecution is subject matter of trial upon evidence being led.

13. In view of discussions made herein above, it is evident that there is no hope of any early conclusion of trial. Any conferment of title by agreement to sell being an aspect to be considered, this Court finds the applicant to be released on bail.

14. Accordingly bail application is allowed.

15. Let applicant-Jagat Narain Shukla involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 BNS. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 BNSS is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 BNS. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

16. The trial court is directed to expedite the proceedings. Order Date :- 10.4.2025 Renu/- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench