Allahabad High Court
Dharamveer vs The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Dept. ... on 21 February, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:15561 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 343 of 2024 Applicant :- Dharamveer Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Dept. Of Home Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Chandra,Nazia Khatoon Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
1. Learned AGA informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including up-to-date case diary and the investigation of this case is still pending.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. The present application has been moved by the accused-applicant- Dharamveer in Case Crime No. 70 of 2023, under Sections 419,420,467,468,471 I.P.C., Police Station Raunahi, District Faizabad/Ayodhya, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as he is apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant while pressing the anticipatory bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. The allegations against the applicant are to the tune that he had instituted a time-barred revision before the Board of Revenue, which was dismissed for want of prosecution. However, a ?Parwana Amaldaramad? is shown to have been issued in that revision whereby the names of co-accused Amarjit and Nand Lal were directed to be incorporated in the revenue record.
5. It is vehemently submitted that the applicant had never filed the said revision and in this regard, the applicant had himself lodged an FIR bearing Case Crime No. 415 of 2023, under Sections 419,420,467,468,471 IPC at PS Raunahi, Ayodhya against the co-accused persons namely, Amarjit and Nand Lal.
6. It is further submitted that as the applicant was not having any concern with the land in dispute, it was impossible for him to have filed any revision before the Board of Revenue and it appears that someone else has done the mischief in order to falsely implicate the applicant and the applicant is not the beneficiary of the forged ?Parwana Amaldaramad?.
7. It is further submitted that applicant is a respectable citizen of the locality and is having no criminal history. The investigating officer without there being any cogent and reliable material/evidence is making all out efforts to apprehend/arrest the applicant and there is no apprehension that after being granted facility of anticipatory bail, applicant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty. It is undertaken that applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation as well as in the trial as and when required and thus, protection from arrest be granted to him.
8. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the applicant has specifically denied to have instituted any revision before the Board of Revenue bearing No. 2285 of 2021, which is shown to have been dismissed for want of prosecution on 26.10.2021. However, apart from dismissal in non prosecution, there was no further order and thereafter a ?Parwana Amaldaramad? is shown to have been issued from the Board of Revenue, wherein apart from the dismissal of the revision, it was also directed to incorporate the names of the co-accused persons Amarjit and Nand Lal in the revenue records. The defence of the applicant appears to be that he has no concern with the land in dispute as he was not a recorded tenure holder of the same nor he is the beneficiary of the forged ?Parwana Amaldaramad?. Thus, it may not be believed that without any motive and not being the beneficiary, why he would commit such a mischief and therefore, the defence is that someone else has filed the revision before the Board of Revenue and got ?Parwana Amaldaramad? issued in order to falsely implicate the applicant. Reliance has also been placed on FIR lodged by the instant applicant against two co-accused persons namely, Amarjit and Nand Lal. Thus, the case of the applicant appears to be distinguishable from the role of the aforementioned co-accused persons.
10. Thus having regard to the reasons mentioned above and keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors., MANU/SC/1021/2010, Sushila Aggarwal and Ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors., MANU/SC/0100/2020, Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Ors. v. State of Punjab, MANU/SC/0215/1980 : 1980 (2) SCC 565, and Nathu Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others:(2021) 6 SCC 64, in the considered opinion of this court, having regard to the material/evidence available against the applicant, the applicant may be provided protection from arrest for a limited period of time.
11. Thus the instant anticipatory bail application is finally disposed of in terms that till the submission of police report, if any, under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent court in the event of arrest of the applicant- Dharamveer involved in aforesaid case crime number, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned/Investigating Officer/arresting officer, subject to the following conditions:-
(1) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation or for discovery of any fact by a police officer/investigating officer/arresting officer as and when required and will cooperate in the investigation.
(2) The applicant 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(3) The applicant shall not leave the India without the previous permission of the Court.
Order Date :- 21.2.2024 Shravan