Allahabad High Court
Jitendra Singh vs State Of U.P. on 9 August, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:129183 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27351 of 2024 Applicant :- Jitendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gauri Shanker Mishra,Rahul Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
1. Heard Sri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA for the State.
2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 548 of 2023, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 447, 506 IPC, Police Station Dhoomanganj, District Prayagraj during pendency of the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as per allegation applicant sold the property to the informant on 14.02.2013 through registered sale deed and thereafter he also sold the remaining share of the properties to two ladies and in the year 2018 both the ladies also sold their property to the informant and subsequently informant when started construction then Prayagraj Development Authority raised objection by stating that property belongs to it and demolished his construction, therefore, applicant committed fraud.
4. He further submits that entire allegation of fraud and cheating leveled against the applicant is totally false. He further submits that before executing the sale deed dated 14.02.2013 to the informant, applicant moved an application to Prayagraj Development Authority to the effect that whether property in question has ever been acquired by it or not and pursuant to the application moved by him on 05.02.2013 Sri Sat Shukla, the Public Information Officer through his letter informed the applicant that property in question has not been acquired by Prayagraj Development Authority and thereafter on 14.02.2013 applicant executed sale deed of the property in favour of the informant, therefore, it cannot be said that applicant committed any fraud. He further submits that the information provided by the Public Information Officer of Prayagraj Development Authority has been annexed at page-99 to the paper-book.
5. He further submits that however applicant is having criminal history of six other cases but his entire criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application and out of six cases in one case applicant has been acquitted and in three cases he is on bail.
6. He further submits that all the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate-I class and in the present matter applicant is in jail since 15.10.2023 i.e. for last more than nine months.
7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that from the letter dated 05.02.2013 issued by Public Information Officer of Prayagraj Development Authority, it reflects that Prayagraj Development Authority informed the applicant that property in question has not been acquired by it.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
9. However, as per allegation applicant by playing fraud sold the property to the informant which actually belongs to Prayagraj Development Authority but from the letter issued by the Public Information Officer of Prayagraj Development Authority to the applicant, which has been annexed at page-99 of the paper-book, it reflects that Prayagraj Development Authority informed him that property in question has not been acquired by it and thereafter he executed the sale deed in favour of the informant, therefore, considering the letter dated 05.02.2013 of Prayagraj Development Authority, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant did not commit any offence cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.
10. Further, however, applicant is having criminal history of six other cases but it appears that criminal history of the applicant has been explained in the instant bail application.
11. Further, law is settled that ordinarily if otherwise case of bail is made out then merely on the basis of criminal history of the accused his bail application should not be dismissed.
12. Further, all the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate-I class and in the present matter applicant is in jail since 15.10.2023 i.e. for more than nine months.
13. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
14. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.
15. Let the applicant - Jitendra Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
16. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.
18. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
Order Date :- 9.8.2024 AK Pandey