Allahabad High Court
Ishtiyak Ahmad Siddiqui vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. ... on 7 March, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:20794 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 128 of 2023 Applicant :- Ishtiyak Ahmad Siddiqui Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Govt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Akram Azad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arun Kumar Dean (In Person) Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
1. Counter affidavit dated 06.03.2024 is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State as well as respondent No.4- Shri Arun Kumar Dean in person and perused the record.
3. The instant application has been moved by the applicant- Ishtiyak Ahmad Siddiqui, in Case Crime No. 0252 of 2018, under Sections 419,420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Sultanpur, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case.
4. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the anticipatory bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. The F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by the respondent No.4, namely, Arun Kumar Dean by moving an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the District Magistrate/ Sub-Divisional Magistrate and lodging of the F.I.R. is itself illegal as the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is not authorized to lodge any first information report or order investigation of the same under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., as a Magistrate, who can take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. may only pass an order under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
5. It is further submitted that applicant is a lessee of a property as the lease deed has been executed in favour of him by one H.R. Mall, who is the Secretary of Lucknow Diocesan Trust Association.
6. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, the statement of secretary of the aforesaid trust association, Shri H.R. Mall, was recorded by the Investigating Officer, who has categorically stated that the applicant had taken the property on lease from the aforesaid H.R. Mall on rent at the rate of Rs.720/- per year and he further stated that the respondent No.4 is in a habit of pressurizing those, who are living in the Church compound and also having ill will to grab the property owned by the aforesaid trust association and in this regard various cases are pending in different courts.
7. While drawing the attention of this Court towards an affidavit given by one Shiv Murti Yadav, a copy of which has been placed as Annexure No.2 to the rejoinder affidavit filed by the applicant, it is submitted that it is stated by the above mentioned Shiv Murti Yadav, who is a care taker of Church Compound, Sultanpur that the impugned property was given on lease by the LucknowDiocesan Trust Association (LDTA) to the applicant and thus, all allegations which have been levelled contrary to these documents are false, concocted and could not be believed.
8. It is further submitted that earlier also an application was moved by the respondent No.4 to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sultanpur requesting to dispossess the applicant, however, the same has been rejected and a copy of the said order passed by the S.D.M., Sultanpur of date 07.07.2018 is placed as Annexure No.3.
9. It is further submitted that all the material and evidence which has been collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation would reveal that applicant is a lessee and is in possession of the impugned property as tenant/ lessee and has not taken the possession of the same illegally and an application on the basis of which the f.I.R. has been registered has been moved by the respondent No.4 on the basis of false and concocted facts.
10. It is further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is ready to cooperate in the investigation as well as in the trial and the charge sheet has been filed against the applicant without arresting him.
11. Learned AGA on the other hand opposes the prayer of anticipatory bail of the applicant.
12. Shri Arun Kumar Dean, respondent No.4 appearing in personal vehemently opposes the prayer of anticipatory bail of the applicant by submitting that applicant has illegally grabbed the property belongs to her sister-in-law (Bhabhi).
13. Shri Arun Kumar Dean, while relying on the counter affidavit filed by him submits that in fact a fraud has been committed by the applicant and a lease deed has been executed by making forged signature of Shri H.R. Mall on 30.09.1999, as there was no two room set or go-down constructed over the land in dispute and a dispute relating to the same land is going on between him and accused in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division. While referring to the Annexure No.CA2 and 3, it is submitted that these annexures would reveal that there was no building constructed at the site. It is further submitted that the lease deed with regard to said land of dated 29.10.2009 was executed by the Secretary, LucknowDiocesan Trust Association (LDTA) in favour of one Smt. Monika Dean, W/o Shri Madhur Dean, copy of the same is being filed with the counter affidavit dated 06.03.2024. Thus, the applicant is not entitled for any protection.
14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as well as respondent No.4 in person and having perused the record, it is reflected that after investigation, the charge sheet in this case has been submitted by the Investigating Officer. The applicant by showing various statements given by H.R. Mall, The Secretary of LDTA has submitted that the applicant is a lessee of the impugned land while the case of the informant appears to be that the said land was leased in favour of one Monika Dean.
15. Having considered all the allegations and counter allegations levelled by the parties against each other, it appears to be a dispute pertaining to two rival fractions, who are claiming ownership over the land in question, as Shri H.R. Mall as well as one Monika Dean is shown to have given the lease of the plot and it appears that a civil suit is also pending between the parties with regard to the same property. The charge sheet in this case has already been submitted and the dispute between the parties may be better resolved/ adjudicated by a Civil court, however, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, a case of anticipatory bail is made out in favour of the applicant.
16. Thus, having regard to the above facts and reasons given above, the instant anticipatory bail application moved by the applicant-Ishtiyak Ahmad Siddiqui is, hereby, allowed and it is provided that in the event of arrest of the applicant- Ishtiyak Ahmad Siddiqui, in the above-mentioned case under any process of the trial court or on his appearance/surrender before the trial court within 20 days, whichever is earlier, applicant shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/ Investigating Officer/ Trial Court subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation or even for discovery of any fact by a police officer as and when required, in case further investigation is directed;
(ii) 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;
(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the Court.
17. Applicant shall remain present before the trial court as and when his presence would be required and he would not take adjournment especially when the prosecution witnesses would be in attendance.
18. If in the opinion of the trial court default of any of the condition placed above is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and shall proceed against him in accordance with law.
19. It is clarified that all the observations contained in this order are only for disposal of this anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial proceedings in any manner.
Order Date :- 7.3.2024 Gurpreet Singh