Allahabad High Court
Ram Narayan Sahu And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 20 September, 2023
Bench: Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:60312
Court No. - 16
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2043 of 2023
Applicant :- Ram Narayan Sahu And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Civil Sectt. Govt. Of U.P. Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Sinha,Manoj Sahu,Siddhartha Sinha
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Sri Siddhartha Sinha, the learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri Jayant Singh Tomar, the learned Additional Government Advocate-I appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records.
2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.338A of 2007, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 469, 506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Madiyaon, District Lucknow.
3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 31.07.2007 against the applicants who are father and son and their men, alleging that the accused persons wanted to grab informant's land by disputing its boundaries.
4. In the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail-application, it has been contended that the applicants are innocent, and they have falsely been implicated in the present case. In para 46 of the affidavit, it has been stated that informant's son, Orilal @ Lalla had filed an FIR bearing Case Crime No.133 of 2005 under Section 307 IPC, Police Station . against opposite party No.2 wherein a final report was filed in favour of applicant No.2.
5. The investigating officer submitted a charge-sheet on 07.04.2011, thereafter a final report was submitted on 29.02.2016. Meanwhile, trial court has taken cognizance of the case on 07.04.2011. The applicants had sought transfer of the proceedings by filing a Transfer Application No.59 of 2012 wherein an interim order dated 27.06.2012 was passed staying proceedings of the case. Transfer application was allowed by means of the order dated 15.02.2017 and the case was transferred from Lucknow to Bareilly.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that proceedings in regard to the dispute were instituted before the revenue courts, which went up to the Board of Revenue in the form of a Second Appeal No.25 of 2008-09 filed under Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act, which was allowed on 29.07.2019 and the order dated 31.08.2007 passed by the S.D.M., Sadar and order dated 21.04.2009 passed by the Additional Commissioner, (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow were set aside.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the order dated 29.07.2019 passed by Board of Revenue has attained finality.
8. The learned A.G.A. has also opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.
9. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the litigation concerning property in question initiated before the Board of Revenue has been finally decided in favour of the applicant by means of judgment and order dated 29.07.2019; that after investigation final report has also been submitted in favour of the applicants and that the applicants are 85 and 63 years old persons, , I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicants.
10. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants are allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicants-Ram Narayan Sahu and Ajay Kumar Sahu before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court:
(i). That the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted;
(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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
(iii). That the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
.
(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)
Order Date :- 20.9.2023
prateek
