Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30745 of 2021 Applicant :- Jaigam Husain Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Firoz Haider,Nazrul Islam Jafri(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Nazrul Islam Jafri, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Firoz Haider, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Azad Singh, learned counsel for the State, as well as perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant- Jaigam Husain with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 565 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of I.P.C., Police Station-Dhampur, District- Bijnor, during the pendency of the trial.
As per the prosecution case, a first information report has been lodged by Gurdeep Singh on 26th December, 2020 through an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against seven named accused persons including the applicant, alleging therein that the applicant was doing pairvy against the first informant in the land dispute. The applicant, his son and one Sanjay instigated the informant to purchase the land, upon which the informant along with Jasveer Singh, Gurpreet Singh and Jagdip have purchased the land of Khasra Nos. 357, 358 and 359 from one Doli on 30th July, 2018 and its mutation was also done in the names of the purchasers. Again the first informant along with Gurpeet Singh, Gurdep and Jagdip Singh Birk became ready to purchase another land bearing Khasara No. 373 area 4.047 hectare at Azimullanagar, Tehsil Dhampur from the aforesaid Doli for Rs. 27,00,000/- and gave Rs. 13,80,000/- from February, 2018 to February, 2019 to the accused persons and decided as 28th May, 2019 for registry It is further alleged that on the said date, first informant also gave the rest amount through different cheques and cash of Rs. 20,000/- and total 27 lacs was given. Thereafter a registered sale-deed was executed by Doli. It is further alleged that it has been found that the said Doli is not the actual owner of the aforesaid land and the accused persons have got it executed by an impostor in place of the actual owner and grabbed Rs. 27 lacs from the first informant and executed a forged sale-deed in favour of the first informant and others.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the present first information report has been lodged by the first informant on 26th December, 2020 i.e. after more than one year and five months from the date of alleged incident dated 30th July, 2018, for which no plausible explanation has been given by the prosecution, which makes the entire prosecution story doubtful.
It is further submitted that the first information report lodged by the first informant is nothing but a bundle of lie and the same has been lodged only for exploiting the applicant, as he is pairokar of Doli, by indulging his name in a fake, false and frivolous case. The entire prosecution story as unfolded in the first information report is absolutely a self-made story projected by the informant.
It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that as per the version of the first information report as well as the statement of the first informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the applicant is neither the seller nor the purchaser of the property in question. He has no concern with the alleged execution of the sale deed in any manner. It is further submitted that against the alleged execution of the sale deed dated 30th July, 2018 in which the applicant is a marginal witness, a first information report has also been lodged on 25th November, 2019, against eight named accused persons including the applicant, which has been registered as Case Crime No. 0583 of 2019 and in the said case the applicant has already been granted anticipatory bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 2nd September, 2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. 2167 of 2020 (Jaigam Hussain Vs. State of U.P.).
It is also submitted that the present first information report dated 26th December, 2020 has been lodged on the same set of facts of the first information report which has been lodged by one Jasveer Singh, who is also a purchaser with the first informant, against seven named accused persons including the applicant. The same is against the provisions of law and the law laid down by the Apex Court from time to time.
It has also been argued that further been argued that the son of the applicant, namely, Raja Haider, who is also one of the co-accused in the present case, has already been granted bail from the court below vide order dated 18th June, 2021, a copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure-9 to the affidavit accompanying the present bail application. The case of the present applicant is similar and identical to that of the aforesaid co-accused. As such the applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail. The applicant has one criminal antecedents to his credit being case crime no. 564 of 2020 except the aforesaid two cases but he has also been granted bail in case crime no. 564 of 2020 vide order dated 15th September, 2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32323 of 2021 (Jaigam Hussain Vs. State of U.P.). It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 25th May, 2021.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but he could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Considering the nature of the offence, provision for initiation of cases and release the accused, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Versus State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.
(ii) 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) 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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 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.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
On acceptance of bail and personal bonds, the Lower Court shall transmit photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on record.
The party shall file a computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self-attested by the representative of the applicant, along with a self-attested identify proof of the said person (s) (preferably Aadhar Card).
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.) Order Date :- 22.9.2021 Sushil/-