Allahabad High Court
Rajeev Lochan Paliwal vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 31 July, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:50394 Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1750 of 2022 Applicant :- Rajeev Lochan Paliwal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Purnendu Chakravarty,Lalta Prasad Misra,Pranjal Jain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Digvijay Nath Dubey Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi J.
1. Heard Sri Purnendu Chakravarty Advocate, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arvind Kumar Pandey, the learned AGA for the State and Sri Digvijay Nath Dubey, the learned counsel for the informant.
2. By means of the present application, the applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No. 363/2021, under Sections 323/504/506/406/420/467/468/471 I.PC., P.S. Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow.
3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by the informant Deepak Sharma on 23.07.2021 against four named persons, including the applicant, and an unknown person, alleging that in December, 2018, co-accused Anand Kumar Singh alias Baba Trikaldarshi met the informant at Mumbai and projected that he had a good understanding of mining of sand and had a sound grip on the market in Banda. The informant visited Lucknow thrice in December, 2018, January, 2019 and February, 2019 where the co-accused Anand Kumar Singh met him in a hospital and at the residence of the applicant and co-accused persons Navneet Singh Bhadauria and Vijay Pal Prajapati also used to sit in the meetings and they claimed themselves to be established businessmen of Morang (a minor mineral used in construction activities). It is mentioned in the F.I.R. that co-accused Anand Kumar Singh alias Baba Trikaldarshi had asked the informant to put his signature on some documents which documents had been prepared by the applicant. Co-accused Anand Kumar Singh demanded Rs. 1 crore from the informant for a government tender and he asked the informant to sign some documents which had been prepared by the co-accused Vijay Pal Prajapati. Vijay Pal Prajapati had shown some documents purportedly relating to registration of the company in the tender process but the documents turned out to be forged. On 11.02.2019, a notice inviting tenders for excavation of sand was published wherein Vijay Pal Prajapati had made a bid without knowledge of the informant and co-accused Anand Kumar Singh had told the informant that Vijay Pal Prajapati's name only will be used and the actual control of the work will be given to the informant. The informant alleged that he had transferred a sum of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- in the account of M/s V. P. Constructions towards earnest money for the tender. On 08.03.2019, another contract was allotted to M/s V. P. Constructions, which is a firm of Vijay Pal Prajapati. The informant claims that it was mutually settled between him and the accused persons that the investments and profit in the tender allotted to M/s V. P. Constructions will be distributed amongst all the persons and on 05.12.2020, a joint venture agreement was executed between the informant, Vijay Pal Prajapati and Pramod Tiwari. On the same day, another agreement for sale and marketing was executed between the informant and Vijay Pal Prajapati but after sometime, the accused persons started sale and marketing of excavated sand through M/s V. P. Constructions and they committed a breach of the agreement dated 05.12.2020. The informant alleged that when he objected against it, the accused persons abused and threatened him.
4. The applicant had filed Writ Petition No. 17201 (M/B) of 2021 seeking quashing of the F.I.R. and on 10.08.2021 a Division Bench of this Court had passed an interim order staying the arrest of the applicant till the next date of listing or till filing of the charge sheet. A charge-sheet was submitted on 01.06.2022. Thereafter the applicant filed the application for grant of anticipatory bail and the applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by means of an order dated 20.10.2022, after the learned A.G.A. had been granted opportunity and he stated that he had obtained complete instructions in the matter.
5. The State and the informant have filed counter affidavits opposing the anticipatory bail application and the applicant has filed rejoinder affidavits in reply to the same.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the FIR alleges that the informant was induced into entering into a joint venture agreement on the basis of a letter of intent dated 08.03.2019 purportedly issued by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), on behalf of the District Magistrate, Banda, which letter was forged. However, there is no categorical assertion as to who had forged the letter and, in any case, there is no allegation that the letter had been forged by the applicant.
7. The Investigating Officer has already submitted a charge-sheet and besides the informant, all the witnesses mentioned in the charge sheet are police personnel. No officer or official from the office the District Magistrate, Banda has been mentioned to be a witness in the charge-sheet.
8. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that even the specimen of the applicant's handwriting has not been taken for comparing the same with the signatures made on the letter in question, which could have been used as an evidence to prove commission of forgery by the applicant.
9. The learned counsel for the informant has next submitted that the bail application of co-accused Anand Kumar Singh Alias Baba Trikaldarshi has been rejected by means of an order dated 03.03.2023 passed by this Court. In this regard, suffice it to say that parity is a relevant consideration while granting bail to persons accused of similar charges but the principle of parity is not attracted to rejection of bail applications. Moreover, the case set-up against the applicant is not similar to that set up against the co-accused whose bail application has been rejected.
10. A co-accused Navneet Bhadauria has been granted anticipatory bail by means of an order dated 18.11.2022 passed by this Court in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1841 of 2022. co-accused Vijay Pal Prajapati has been granted anticipatory bail by means of an order dated 31.07.2023 passed by this Court Criminal Miscellaneous Anticipatory Bail Application No. 57 of 2023.
11. The learned Counsel for the applicant has informed that the applicant has submitted bail bonds in terms of the order dated 20.10.2022 passed by this Court. The learned A.G.A. could not point out any violation of the conditions of anticipatory bail or misuse thereof by the applicant.
12. In the aforesaid circumstances, I find no good ground to take a view different from the view taken by this Court while passing the order dated 20.10.2022. Therefore, the order dated 20.10.2022 is made absolute and the application is allowed in terms of the aforesaid order.
Order Date :- 31.7.2023 Pradeep/-