Allahabad High Court
Rajeev Kumar Verma vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 28 August, 2023
Bench: Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:57551
Court No. - 16
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 98 of 2023
Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Verma
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pranjal Krishna
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arun Sinha,Siddhartha Sinha
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Sri Suhaib Ashraf holding brief of Sri Panjal Krishna, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arvind Kumar Pandey, the learned AGA for the State.
2. On 16.01.2023, after hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. this Court had passed the following interim order -
"The applicant has moved the present application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying for grant of anticipatory bail in Crl. Case No.1748 of 2017 State vs. Rajeev Kumar Verma and others under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., arising out of Crime No.0049 of 2016, P.S. Lambhua, district Sultanpur.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant who prays for and is permitted to implead the complainant as respondent No.2, during course of the day, and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Issue notice to respondent No.2.
List on 15.2.2023.
It is alleged in the prosecution case the complainant is co-owner of khasra No.87 Min, 96, 96cha, 91ka, 112kha, 112ga, 84ba, 112ka, 84, situated at village Gopalpur, Pargana Meeranpur, Tehsil Lambhua, district Sultanpur. The accused persons including the applicant have alleged to have sold the acquired land despite the ban imposed on sale-purchase and mutation of the acquired land and the mutation proceedings of the said land are going on. It is further alleged that the accused persons have misled the Highway Authority of India, sold excess land than their share, in lieu of obtaining wrongful gain of compensation.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first information report was lodged on 6.2.2016. The notification was issued under relevant Act on 22.10.2013. It is submitted that a perusal of the notification shows that except Gata No.87, none of the Gatas referred in the first information report are subject matter of the gazette notification. Therefore, the entire story of the first information report is bogus. As regards gata No.87, part of gata No.87 is involved in the notification. The remaining part of gata No.86 which is in possession of the applicant has been left out. The applicant and the complainant both have been granted compensation way back in September, 2015. This fact is evident from a perusal of the Form 11 issued for the purpose of land acquisition and the same has been obtained by the applicant under Right to Information Act.
It is submitted that even the registered sale deeds have been executed after September 2015, precisely on 31.12.2015 and therefore, it cannot be said that in any manner the applicant has executed sale deed in lieu of obtaining compensation wrongfully. This is a clear case of blackmailing and harassment by the complainant. The applicant has explained the criminal history in para 44 of the affidavit filed in support of the application.
It is further submitted that the applicant has cooperated in the investigation. Charge sheet has been filed. He undertakes to cooperate in the trial.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer made by the applicant's counsel.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation, the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial and gravity of offence, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case in the light of judgment of Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, subject to her cooperation in the trial.
In view of the above as also keeping in view of the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC OnLine 98, the accused applicant Rajeev Kumar Verma is directed to surrender before trial court if she is summoned to face trial for offence in question after filing of the charge sheet. The accused applicant shall be released on bail by the trial court on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, 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.
It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses."
3. Although a counter affidavit has been filed, nothing has come to light which may persuade this Court to take a view, different from the view taken while passing the aforesaid order, nor the learned A.G.A. has pointed out violation of any of the conditions of interim anticipatory bail committed by the applicant.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant informs that the applicant has already furnished bail bonds in furtherance of the aforesaid interim order.
5. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the interim order dated 16.01.2023 is hereby made absolute and the application is allowed in terms of the aforesaid order.
Order Date :- 28.8.2023
Pradeep/-
