Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 19855 of 2021 Applicant :- Kripashankar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- R.V.Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard over anticipatory bail application, under Section 438 Cr.P.C., moved by the applicant- Kripashankar, in Case Crime No. 36 of 2021, under Sections- 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Myorpur, District- Sonbhadra.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused- applicant is innocent; he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number; he was Revenue Inspector of the village Kachan at the relevant time and as per Rule Nos. 173 to 177 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952, the procedure for allotment of lease is there, wherein, Revenue Inspector is having no role; the Land Management Committee of Gaon Sabha is to propose and thenafter to make the allotment, which is to be forwarded to Sub Divisional Officer of the sub division, from where it shall be approved and after its approval, the documents will be forwarded for its mutation in revenue record and it was only mutation made by applicant; he was of no concern with allotment, which was held to be a forged and fictitious; there is no accusation against applicant for manufacturing any document but police is adamant to arrest; hence anticipatory bail application was moved before court concerned, but it was rejected, hence this application for anticipatory bail with above prayer.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed with this contention that forged and fictitious allotment of land was there and it was held to be a fraud, wherein the public utility land of Gaon Sabha was allotted to Chandrawati, who was of non existence in that village and on the basis of spot inspection as well as investigation of complaint, a report was there for cancellation of above allotment and in compliance of order of Additional District Magistrate, the Lekhpal got this report lodged; admittedly, applicant was Revenue Inspector of the village concerned at the relevant time and the mutation made therein was by him; it is a land scam case and investigation is in process and in case of grant of anticipatory bail, the same may be hampered.
Having heard the rival arguments made by learned counsel for both sides, as above, it is apparent that applicant was Revenue Inspector at the relevant time and mutation was made by him; the initial complaint and inquiry proceeded with the mutation made in the revenue record and it was held to be a forged and fictitious entry on the basis of forged and fictitious allotment.
Considering all those facts and circumstances of the case and law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.
Accordingly, anticipatory bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 21.12.2021 Kamarjahan