Harjeet Singh And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 5191 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 85
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11446 of 2022
 
Applicant :- Harjeet Singh And 3 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kakkar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bharat Bhushan Paul,Saurabh Paul
 
 alongwith
 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10924 of 2022
 
Applicant :- Smt. Nisha Arora And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kakkar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bharat Bhushan Paul,Saurabh Paul
 
 alongwith
 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11435 of 2022
 
Applicant :- Balvinder Kaur @ Baljinder Dau And 4 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kakkar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bharat Bhushan Paul,Saurabh Paul
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

1. Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Bharat Bhushan Paul, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, Sri O.P. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant anticipatory bail applications have been filed on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to release them on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0343 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120-B IPC, Police Station Kutubshahar, District Saharanpur.

3. It has been alleged by the first informant-Manish Garg that land bearing no. J-1/308A.C.D. and J-1/313A of Khasra no. 812 and Khevat no. 151 situated at Shivpuri, Saharanpur in front of Darpan Talkies bearing Old no. 14/138-138/1-15 and New no. 14/191 and 14/192 was in possession and ownership of Khalilur Rehman, Smt. Amir Begum and Smt. Ashgari Begum and the aforesaid land in the year 1935 had been leased out by the owners to Shakhawat Ali for a lease period of 50 years; in the year 1947 the owners of the land namely Khalilur Reham and others left for Pakistan as such the land in question was acquired by the State; as per the FIR 1/3rd of the aforesaid land had been sold to Lala Kishori Lal in September 1955, Lala Chandu Lan and Bhagwan Das S/o Lala Lachchhi Ram, whereas the remaining 2/3rd of the land on 06.01.1966 had been transferred by the government to Chandu Lal, Kishori Lal and Bhagwan Das, as such they became the absolute owners of the land in question; Sher Ali and others S/o Shakhawat Ali in 1970 had leased out their land to Ujagar Singh, Bal Kishan, Arun Kumar and Vijendra and the said land was used for joint business; in the year 1984 the lease period of the land expired; the FIR further reveals a partition suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Saharanpur had been instituted for partition amongst Chandu Lal, Kishori Lal and Bhagwan Das which was numbered as Original Suit No. 234 of 1989, in which a compromise was drawn and the said land came in the share of Chandu Lal vide order dated 29.05.1989; as such the aforesaid land in question came into absolute ownership and possession of Chandu Lal; As per allegations in the FIR, the property in question came in the hands of the first informant Manish Garg on the basis of registered Will dated 19.06.2003 after death of Chandu Lal; the property was rented to Anurag Singhal of Saharanpur; the co-accused Balvinder Kaur executed sale deeds in favour of her own family members on different dates by hatching a conspiracy with the co-accused persons knowing fully well that the property belonged to the first informant. It is alleged in the FIR that Karmveer and Amit Kumar Arora, in collusion with others prepared false and fabricated papers and got their names entered in the Nagar Nigar, Saharanpur.

4. It is contended on behalf of the applicants that there is no substance in the FIR; the dispute is purely of civil nature and can only be decided by a civil court; the other side of the story is that Karmveer and Amit Kumar Arora inherited the share of Bal Kishan and Bal Kishan has inherited the same from predecessors in interest as given in the affidavit; 30% share was transferred by Balvinder Kaur etc through 6 different sale deeds, therefore, the applicants validly claimed the property; it is next submitted that the nature of controversy is such which by no stretch of imagination can be called criminal in nature; both the sides have their own claims of being rightful owners/purchasers/sellers of property in question. My attention has been drawn to copy of paper demonstrating that a civil litigation is already pending between the two sides; It is assured that they shall cooperate in investigation and shall abide by the conditions, if any, imposed by this Court.

5. The application for anticipatory bail is ardently opposed by the other side. It is contended by the other side that the claim of the applicants is wholly illegal as they are claiming ownership on the basis of a lease deed; no sale deed as alleged by the applicants was ever executed; it is also pointed out that the warrants are running against all the applicants; in this regard judgment of the Supreme Court in Lavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1331 of 2012 decided on 31.08.2012 has been referred to. In the above noted judgment the Supreme Court observed that where the person against whom a warrant had been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrant and declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code is not entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. As per the submission of the learned AGA warrants have been issued, however, it is not suggested that the applicants are absconding or concealing themselves or that process under Section 82(2) of Cr.P.C. too has simultaneously been issued. In my view, therefore, no benefit can be given to the opposite side. It is conceded by the learned AGA for the State that the applicants do not have any criminal history.

6. In case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by the Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

7. In the instant case, I considered submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case. In my view, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

8. Let the applicants, Harjeet Singh, Prabjeet Singh, Surjeet Singh @ Timmu Singh Ranjeet Singh, Smt. Nisha Arora, Amit Arora, Balvinder Kaur @ Baljinder Dau Priti Dua, Ginni Kaur @ Ginni Dua, Satendra Kaur and Manjeet Kaur Dua involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on anticipatory bail till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each of the same amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions as below:-

(i) that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) that the applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

(iii) that the applicants shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

(iv) that the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

(v) that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

(vi) that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted.

9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicants.

10. It is made clear that observations made herein shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion at any stage of the case based on material before him.

Order Date :- 16.2.2023

#Vikram/-