Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Toyyab Khan vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 1 December, 2022
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 11
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8091 of 2021
Applicant :- Mohd. Toyyab Khan
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ramakar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant in connection with Case Crime No. 294 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali Musafirkhana, District-Amethi.
As per prosecution case in brief, the complainant Om Prakash Pandey has lodged an F.I.R. on 23.10.2018 against Manju Devi, Amit Kumar and Intizar Ahmad alleging inter alia that Ram Das S/o Nanku, resident of Village Nathupur, Post Kasthuni Poorab, Police Station Musafirkhana, District Amethi was the owner of the land in question situated at Gata Nos.145 and 158-A. Ram Das had already died thirty five years back, therefore, the accused Manju in collusion with Amit Kumar and Intizar Ahmad taking the benefit that Ram Das and his wife Jairaji @ Barka had already died, impersonating her associate Ratipal as Ram Das, got a sale deed dated 3.3.2018 executed in her favour and getting her name recorded in the revenue records further executed sale deed in favour of Kausar Ali.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that vide order dated 2.8.2021 interim anticipatory bail was granted to the applicant and he has not misused the liberty of the same. He further submits that the Investigating Officer without conducting fair investigation submitted the charge sheet in this case, whereas the case of the present applicant stands on different footing to that of co-accused Manju Devi, Amit Kumar and Intizar Ahmad because he is the witness in the second sale deed executed by Manju Devi in favour of Kausar Ali. It is also submitted that the applicant has no concern with the fraud committed by co-accused Manju Devi, by getting a forged sale deed executed in her favour.
Per contra learned Additional Govt. Advocate for the state of U.P. opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant by contending that investigating officer after due investigation submitted charge sheet date 16.08.2021 in this case on the basis of cogent material against the applicant, therefore as on date cognizable offence is made out against the applicant and it can not be presumed that he has been falsely implicated.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that it is admitted case of the applicant that he was witness in the sale deed executed by Smt. Manju Devi in favour of Kausar Ali, therefore, it cannot be said that he was implicated without any reason. It is a organized crime therefore innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at this stage. Upon perusal of material brought on record as well as complicity of accused-applicant and also judgment of the Apex Court in the case of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC 4198, this Court does not find any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the applicant as prima facie case is made out.
Accordingly, the instant application for anticipatory bail is rejected.
Order Date :- 1.12.2022
Ram.
