Reserved On:- 10.02.2021 Delivered On:- 26.02.2021 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1878 of 2021 Applicant :- Ram Saran Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Afzal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Amitabh Tripathi, Tapan Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Siddharth, J.
1. Heard Sri Mohd. Afzal, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Amitabh Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State.
2. The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Ram Saran, Case Crime No. 879 of 2020, under Sections- 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Modi Nagar, District- Ghaziabad.
3. Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.
4. There is allegation in the FIR that co-accused, Mukesh Kumar and Kiran Pal, came to the house of informant. Kiran Pal informed that the applicant, Ram Saran, co-accused, Prem, Raj Kumar, Sanjay and Anil, who belong to scheduled caste and their brothers are owners of 12 bighas of land of khata no. 222, khasra 237 M, village- Fafrana, Tehsil- Modi Nagar. All are brothers want to sell their land. The applicant and co- accused, Mukesh Kumar, showed the land to the informant and she agreed to purchase the same for an amount of Rs. 30 lakhs from the applicant and his four brothers. On 25.05.2012 she paid Rs. 4,30,000/- as advance sale consideration to the co-accused persons, Kiran Pal and Mukesh Kumar and a registered agreement to sell was executed by the applicant and his four brothers in her favour on 25.05.2012. There is allegation that the applicant and his four brothers avoided execution of sale deed. After the time limit for execution of sale deed expired on 25.04.2013, she demanded her money back. The applicant and his brothers then executed another agreement to sell dated 22.02.2013 in favour of informant after accepting Rs. 1,50,000/- more from her and executed another agreement to sell dated 01.03.2016 agreeing to execute the sale deed till 28.02.2019. Thereafter, the applicant and his three brothers executed a power of attorney in favour of their 5th brother, Anil. Co-accused, Anil, also did not executed sale deed in the favour of informant and executed another agreement to sell dated 22.03.2019 agreeing to execute sale deed within 3 months after taking permission from the District Magistrate. The informant received information that the applicant and his four brothers are selling the land in dispute after plotting to third parties. She has alleged that the applicant and co-accused persons have cheating her of money and violated the agreement entered with her and have also threatened her when she protested against their deeds.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that no suit for specific performance of contract was ever instituted by the informant against the applicant. All the agreement executed by the applicant and co- accused were never sought to be enforced by the informant. Co-accused, Kiran Pal, has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 4931 of 2021.
6. Learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer made on behalf of the applicant. He has submitted that the role of Kiran Pal is different from the present applicant. His role was confined to introducing the informant to the applicant and his brothers who have cheated the informant. Kiran Pal has been directed to refund Rs. 1,50,000/- to the informant while granting interim bail to him. The main allegation has been made against the applicant and his four brothers. One of the brother of the applicant, namely, Prem, has been enlarged on anticipatory bail by the Court below but it will not affected the jurisdiction of this Court to consider the merits of the allegations made against the applicant.
7. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant. He has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, he is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear anticipatory bail cannot be granted.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
9. Anticipatory bail application is rejected.
Order date:- 26.02.2021 Rohit