Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record of the case.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Ramanand @ Nankhooram @ Natepal with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 509 of 2016, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, police station Soraon, district Prayagraj (Allahabad) during the pendency of trial.
The facts, as unfolded by the prosecution, in short conspectus, are that on 26.10.2016, informant Rajesh Pandey lodged a first information report against three accused persons, namely Sunil Kumar Patel @ Mahendra Patel, Ramanand @ Nate (present applicant) and Om Prakash @ Sosi alleging inter alia therein that informant and his friend Vijendra Narayan have intended to purchase a land jointly. While, they were in search of the land, they came in contact with one Owais who assured them that he will made available the land of their choice. Thereafter, Owais along with co-accused Sunil Kumar Patel shown 620 square meter land covered by boundary wall which is part of Arazi No. 881 Minjumla Rakba 0.7310 hectare situated at Village- Morahu Uparhar, Pargana-Nawabganj, Tehsil Soraon, District-Allahabad. On query by the informant as to who is the owner of the said land, Owais and Sunil Kumar Patel told that one Ramanand S/o Babadeen is owner of the said land. They also introduced the informant to Ramanand. On making inquiry of revenue records in Tehsil it was revealed that the owner of said land, Arazi No. 881, is Ramanand, therefore, the informant believed the words of Owais, Sunil Kumar Patel and Ramanand as true. Thereafter, sale consideration of the said land was settled in Rs. 87,50,000/-(rupees eighty seven lacs fifty thousand only), but the aforesaid sale consideration amount was not available with the informant and his friend Vijendra Narayan, therefore, they have decided to get the agreement to sell executed, on which Ramanand became ready and on 09.03.2016 and 18.03.2016 he has taken amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- and 2,00,000/- respectively, and thereafter, the applicant Ramanand executed a registered agreement to sell regarding aforesaid land on 22.04.2016 before the Sub Registrar, Soraon, Allahabad and in the said registered agreement to sell, the brother of applicant Om Prakash and Santosh Kumar are the witnesses. On 05.07.2016, informant moved an application before the Tehsildar, Soraon, Allahabad for showing the boundary etc. of the said land, on which, on 08.07.2016, Tehsildar directed the Revenue Inspector/Lekhpal to submit his report after inquiry. On 22.7.2016, when the informant tried to contact Ramanand for getting the sale deed executed within period prescribed in registered agreement to sell, but he did not meet. Thereafter, informant tried to meet Owais and Sunil Kumar Patel, who had introduced the informant to Ramanand and they were present at the time of execution of registered agreement to sell and also received Rs. 5 lacs from the informant in lieu of his commission being mediator of the said transaction, but they also did not meet and Mobile Nos. 9198588088, 7080807018 and 9198388744 of Sunil Kumar Patel was also switched off. On making deep inquiry in the matter, the informant came to know that they are cheater and running a big racket. The correct names of aforesaid Sunil Kumar Patel, Ramanand and Om Prakash are Mahendra Patel, Nate Pal and Sosi respectively. The applicant in collusion with other co-accused persons impersonating himself as Ramanand and enclosing a forged I.D. executed a registered agreement to sell dated 22.04.2016, whereby informant suffered a loss of Rs. 30 lacs (rupees thirty lacs only).
On the strength of the aforesaid prosecution case, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. On 22.04.2016, the applicant went to Tehsil Soraon and was sitting in the chamber of Mr. J.P. Tiwari, Advocate who said the applicant to be the witness in the registry. Mr. J.P. Tiwari, Advocate and informant took the applicant to Sub-Registrar Office, where they misuse the photograph and thumb impression of the applicant by showing the applicant as Ramanand (seller) in the agreement to sell dated 22.04.2016.
It is next submitted that the applicant is an illiterate person, he was not aware about the fact that his photographs and thumb impression have been misused by Mr. J.P. Tiwari, Advocate in collusion with the informant. It is submitted that the informant is the real offender, who, in order to save himself, implicated the applicant in the present case. Name and address of the applicant as mentioned in the alleged agreement to sell dated 22.04.2016 is not correct. It is further submitted that the correct name of the applicant is Nanhkooram and not Ramanand. The applicant has not received a single penny from the informant. The investigating officer without conducting proper investigation submitted charge sheet dated 19.10.2020 against the applicant and other co-accused persons. The applicant is in jail since 19.08.2020. Lastly it is submitted that in case the applicant is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Per contra learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the bail by contending that there is specific allegation against the applicant that he impersonating himself as Ramanand executed the registered agreement to sell in favour of informant and Vijendra Narayan and accepted Rs. 4,50,000/- from them. Learned Additional Government Advocate has also contended that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage therefore, the applicant does not deserve any indulgence. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
Having given thoughtful consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate, I find that learned counsel for the applicant admits the thumb impression and photographs of the applicant on the registered agreement to sell dated 22.04.2016. It is also admitted fact that applicant is neither owner of land in question nor he is Ramanand. Name of applicant is Nanhkooram @ Nate Pal S/o Sri Ram Dular, but he impersonating himself as Ramanand executed registered agreement to sell of the land of one Ramanand in favour of informant and his friend Vijendra Narayan, as such, the allegations as levelled in the first information report are admitted to the applicant regarding execution of agreement to sell dated 22.04.2016, which is admittedly as forged document as per plea taken by the applicant himself in paragraph Nos. 11, 12 and 13 of the bail application shifting the entire responsibility upon one Mr. J.P. Tiwari, Advocate by contending that the applicant was taken by Mr. J.P. Tiwari, Advocate to become a witness of the said registered agreement to sell, but his thumb impression and photographs have been misused by Mr. J.P. Tiwari, Advocate. There is also nothing on record that any complaint or first information report has been lodged by the applicant against Mr. J.P. Tiwari, Advocate till date.
Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon an order dated 01.02.2021 of Hon'ble the Apex Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 2021 (Ram Gopal Gautam Vs. State of Rajasthan and another). I have perused the said order. In the said case fourth bail application of accused under Sections 420, 406 IPC was rejected by the High Court of Rajasthan vide order dated 22.12.2019 and the Hon'ble Apex Court has granted bail on 01.02.2021 considering the incarceration period of the applicant in jail since 26.05.2018 i.e. two and half years, but in the present case the applicant is in jail since 19.08.2020, therefore, the said order of the Hon'ble Apex Court is not applicable to the case of the applicant at this stage.
In view of the above, this Court does not find it a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage.
The bail application is accordingly rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of one year from the date of production of a copy of this order.
It is made clear that the observations made herein above were only for the purpose of disposal of bail application and the learned Trial Court shall decide the case strictly in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observations made by this Court.
It is also made clear that in case certified copy of this order is not issued due to COVID-19 pandamic, the copy of order downloaded from the official website of the Allahabad High Court shall be acted upon.
Order Date :- 18.2.2021 Sumaira/Sunil