Court No. - 88
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34830 of 2021 Applicant :- Rehan Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar,Imran Mabood Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vijay Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Anil Kumar Ojha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 548 of 2017, under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C., Police Station Shahganj, District Jaunpur.
Tersely put, the prosecution case is that the land of informant's father i.e. Khata No. 387, Aarazi No. 885/6.6 decimal is ancestral property of the informant and by interpolation in the revenue records applicant has got the fictitious entry made in his favour and also obtained the order dated 06.02.1995 from the Consolidation Officer, deleting the name of the first informant and incorporating his father's name i.e. Sibte Hasan in the revenue records. When complainant came to know this fact, he filed recall application and the same was allowed by Consolidation Officer and he also made complaint in the administrative side and upon enquiry, Chief Revenue Officer found fictitious revenue entries which were allegedly made in the year 1995 in favour of the father of the applicant. Records of sale case were weeded out in the year 1994.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has not committed the alleged offence. Complainant/informant has lodged the F.I.R. just to twist the arms of the applicant. There is no specific allegation of cheating or manufacturing the false documents against the applicant, hence no case under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 is made out against the applicant. Validity of will deed is sub-judice before the competent court. Agreement dated 26.03.1970 is a valid document. Applicant cannot be remotely connected either with the agreement dated 26.03.1970 or with the mutation case in which order dated 06.02.1995 was passed in favour of the applicant's father. Accused is lying in jail since 04.08.2021. He has no criminal history. If he is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the prayer of bail. Learned counsel for complainant submitted that complainant made the entire allegation on the basis of enquiry conducted by Chief Revenue Officer on 22.11.2016 and submitted on 26.11.2016 before the Ziladhikari/Incharge Officer Shikayat Prakosth Jaunpur wherein it has been stated that criminal complaint may be lodged against those who were involved in forged entry in C.H.Form-23 illegally. Father of the complainant never entered into forged agreement and never took any loan in his lifetime by mortgaging his land. Agreement is not legal document on the basis of which name of the original tenure holder may be deleted and other can be mutated. Agreement dated 26.03.1970 is not a valid document. Applicant is the main person who had committed the said cheating with the help of two other co- accused persons named in the F.I.R. Applicant himself wants to grab the commercial property with the help of land mafia. During course of argument, learned counsel for complainant vehemently submitted that applicant could not get any relief by this Court or by Hon'ble Apex Court and lastly submitted that bail application of the applicant should be rejected.
Nature of accusation, evidence collected by I.O. in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of punishment in case of conviction, complicity of the accused and all other attending circumstances were duly considered.
Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, a case for bail is made out.
Accordingly, bail application of the applicant, is rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C. within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 23.12.2021 VPS