Allahabad High Court
Ashok Kumar Shukla vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 19 June, 2025
Author: Rajeev Singh
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:35964
Court No. - 11
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5270 of 2025
Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Shukla
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shivendra S Singh Rathore,Bhavesh Chandel,Sachin Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
1. Vakalatnama filed by Sri Vijay Kumar, Advocate on behalf of the complainant is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Bhavesh Chandel holding brief of Sri Shivendra S. Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vijay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the complainant and Sri Rao Narendra Singh, learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record.
3. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicantwith a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 0032 of 2025, under Sections 336(3), 338, 340(2) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Dileeppur, District Pratapgarh.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an ex-army person and he is a law abiding citizen. He has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that earlier he was implicated in two cases, in one case final report is submitted and in another case he has already been acquitted. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is a bonafide purchaser of the property bearing khasra no. 909, area 0.265, village Kothiyahi, Tehsil Raniganj, District Pratapgarh from Jagannath by way of sale-deed dated 30.05.2016 on payment of sale consideration of Rs.9 lacs, which was registered on 30.05.2016 at Bahi no. 1, Jild No. 1106, Page Nos. 281 to 308 at Serial No. 1603 in the office of Sub Registrar, Raniganj, Pratapgarh. He further submits that when it came into notice, a case No.RST/406/2025 (Gram Sabha and others Vs. Murli Devi) was registered under Section 38(1) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in the court of Sub Divisional Officer, Raniganj. At the time of adjudication of the aforesaid case, it was found that the property in question was recorded as 'naveen parti' in the name of 'Gaon Sabha', but a forged order dated 02.03.1979 of SOC, Pratapgarh was prepared by some persons in favour of Jagannath and thereafter his name was mutated on 22.02.1984. As no any appeal no. 872 is found in the record of SOC in which the judgment and order dated 02.03.1979 was issued, an order dated 06.02.2025 was passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Raniganj, Pratapgarh restoring the land in question again in the name of 'Gaon Sabha' as 'naveen parti' and the FIR of the case in question was also lodged by the complainant who is a villager.
5. He further submits that an application for recall of the order dated 06.02.2025, passed by SDM, Raniganj, Pratapgarh in the aforesaid case, was moved by the applicant and similarly, he also preferred an appeal under Section 38(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Commissioner, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj which was registered as Appeal No. C202502000000493 (Jagannath and another Vs. Mata Shanker Dubey and two others). The aforesaid appeal is still pending. The aforesaid appeal was filed on the ground that the Sub Divisional Officer had passed the ex-parte order. He further submits that one FIR No. 27 of 2025, under Sections 338, 336(3), 340(2) of BNS, Police Station Dileeppur, District Pratapgarh was also lodged by father of the applicant against the complainant of the present case on 16.02.2025 in which the investigation is going on, as in the present case, the applicant is taken into custody and he is in jail since 08.05.2025. He further submits that in the case of co-accused, Chhotey Lal, who is the Lekhpal and against whom it was alleged that he placed the forged order of SOC for mutation, has already been granted protection that till filing of the police report, he shall not be arrested and he is also directed to appear before the SHO concerned on 30.06.2025 at 11:00 a.m. sharp to cooperate in the investigation. He further submits that the applicant is a bonafide purchaser and he is ready to cooperate in the investigation, therefore, he is entitled for bail.
6. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel appearing for the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submitted that the applicant is mastermind of the case and he has not disclosed before the Divisional Commissioner in the appeal that he has also preferred a recall application of the order dated 06.02.2025 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer by which the land in question was again registered in the name of 'Gaon Sabha' as 'naveen parti' and he further submits that there is no evidence that any sale consideration was given by the applicant in the account of Jagannath, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.
7. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of FIR as well as other relevant documents, it is evident on record that the order dated 02.03.1979 of SOC in Appeal No. 872 is not in existence which was in favour of Jagannath and the name of Jagannath was mutated in the revenue record on 22.02.1984 on the basis of aforesaid order. As per the applicant, who purchased the property in question on 30.05.2016 after making payment of Rs. 9 lacs as sale consideration (subject matter of investigation) to Jagannath, thereafter in the regular proceeding, the property in question again reinstated in the name of 'Gaon Sabha' as 'naveen parti' by SDM. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled for bail.
8. The bail application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant-Ashok Kumar Shukla, who is involved in aforementioned 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 subject to following conditions:
(i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
(ii) 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.
(iv) 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 229-A I.P.C./269 B.N.S.
(v) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 B.N.S.S. may be issued and if 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 174-A I.P.C./209 B.N.S.
(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. 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.
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 19.6.2025
kkv/
