Allahabad High Court
Sanjeev Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 12 August, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:130153 Court No. - 81 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8504 of 2023 Appellant :- Sanjeev Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjay Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Suneel Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.
Sanjeev Kumar- appellant has filed this appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to challenge the order dated 26.07.2023 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Prayagraj, whereby his application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail, during the pendency of trial in Case Crime No. 338 of 2017, under Sections 147, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)da, dha, 3(2)V, 3(2)Va Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Industrial Area, District Prayagraj has been rejected.
As per the allegations contained in the first information report, Smt. Meera Devi, mother of the complainant- Ashish Kumar Sonker had purchased immovable property through registered sale deed dated 11.2.2026 executed through the company, namely, Rohi Nandan Infra Developers, with the intervention of the property dealer, namely, Vimal Kumar Singh and against this purchase, the buyer had paid a sale consideration of approximately Rs.7,05,000/- to the sellers. The amount of sale consideration was paid on different dates i.e. Rs.10,000/- in December, 2015, followed by Rs.1,75,000/- on 2.1.2026 and Rs.5,20,000/- on 6.12.2016, however despite payment, the sale deed was not being executed. Finally, the same was executed on 11.9.2016, but the possession of the property in question was not delivered to the buyer. Further, pursuant to the execution of sale deed mutation in favour of the buyer was also entered on 23.4.2016. On these broad allegations, the first information report was registered for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC.
Today, when the case was called out, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant- accused.
Mr. Suneel Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has pointed out that vide order dated 7th November, 2023, this Court had extended the concession of interim regular bail to the accused- appellant, keeping in view one of his contentions that in case, the appellant is released on bail, he would return back the amount of consideration of sale deed along with stamp duty to the purchaser within a period of one month, but the said undertaking has not been fulfilled by the accused- appellant.
Learned State Counsel on the other hand while opposing the prayer on the same ground has fairly stated that the investigation in the case is already complete, and the charge sheet stands filed before the trial court on 24.5.2023.
The order dated 7th November, 2023 passed by this Court is reproduced below:
"Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant, learned AGA for opposite party no.1 and perused the material placed on record.
The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant to set aside the impugned order dated 26.07.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Prayagraj in criminal misc. bail application No. 3976 of 2023, arising out of case crime no. 338 of 2017, under Sections 147, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 504, 506 of IPC, and under Section 3(1)da, dha, 3(2)V, 3(2)Va of SC/ST Act, Police Station Industrial Area, District Kanpur Prayagraj.
There is allegation against the appellant that appellant along with property dealer Vimal Singh and Abhishek Tiwari executed a sale deed dated 11.02.2016 in favour of the mother of the informant of a plot measuring 186.66 sq meter having no. 58, Sector A, Gram Sabha Piprav, Teh Karchana. The name of the purchaser got mutated in the revenue records but in-spite of repeated request mother of the informant is not given possession over the land.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that informant has admitted in her F.I.R that name of purchaser Smt. Meera Devi has been entered in revenue records on the basis of sale deed. Sale deed is brought on record which indicates that possession is already been delivered to purchaser. It is also submitted that informant is a journalist and he is taking advantage of his status. It is further submitted that there is a delay of one and half years in lodging the F.I.R. After making some argument, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant is ready to return back the amount of consideration of the sale deed along-with amount of stamp to Smt. Meera Devi-purchaser of the land, if he is granted interim bail for a short period. Appellant is languishing in jail since 25.05.2023 and criminal history of appellant is explained vide paragraph 6 and 7 of the Supplementary affidavit. In case, the appellant is released on interim bail, he will not misuse the liberty of interim bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. assisted by learned counsel for the informant have supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant and submitted that if appellant returns the amount of consideration of sale deed along-with stamp value within one month from his release, he may be released on interim bail.
Considering the argument advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the informant, since the appellant is ready to return the amount of consideration of sale deed along-with stamp value within one month from his release, this court deems it appropriate to release the appellant on interim bail till 18.12.2023.
Let the appellant, namely, Sanjeev Kumar involved in the above Case be released on interim bail till 18.12.2023 on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
(v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Put up on 18.12.2023 as fresh.
After release, the appellant shall returns the amount of consideration of sale deed along-with stamp value to Smt. Meera Devi-purchaser of the land within one month from his release before the trial Court and trial court shall submit a report regarding the same before this Court. A copy of joint affidavit of appellant and informant will also be produced before this court through supplementary affidavit on the next date fixed. In case, the appellant does not comply the aforesaid direction, his bail application shall be heard on merit on the date fixed. "
A reading of the above would show that indeed, counsel for the appellant had made a submission that in the event of his release for a short period, he would return the sale consideration as well as stamp duty to the purchaser, but during the course of hearing, it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the complainant that the transfer of property by the seller through the sale deed dated 11.2.2016 in favour of the complainant's mother was complete with the entry of mutation in her favour, and the sale deed has never been challenged by any of the parties. The sole grievance relating to the non- delivery of possession to the purchaser has been raised in the first information report and the investigation in the case is also complete.
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the complainant is unable to explain that in the absence of his consent for cancellation of the sale deed, on what premise, his claim for refund of the entire sale consideration and stamp duty is justified. No doubt, on subsequent dates of hearing the case has been adjourned for compliance of the condition regarding refund of the sale consideration, but in the considered opinion of this Court, the matter pertains to the prosecution of the accused and not for recovery of the amount allegedly paid as sale consideration to the seller. Most importantly, the case set up by the complainant- prosecution is yet to be tested before the trial court on the strength of the evidence, and admittedly, the concession of bail extended to the accused vide order dated 7th November, 2023 has not been misused by him.
Thus, keeping in view the above, but without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, the appeal is allowed and while setting aside the impugned order dated 26.07.2023, the interim bail granted to the appellant vide order dated 7th November, 2023, is hereby made absolute.
Order Date :- 12.8.2024 Raj