Allahabad High Court
Ravi Prakash Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, And ... on 22 July, 2025
Author: Rajeev Singh
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:42728 Reserved on:- 30.05.2025 Pronounced on:- 22.07.2025 Court No. - 17 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 57 of 2023 Applicant :- Ravi Prakash Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pranjal Krishna,Akhil Kumar Singh,Deep Narayan Tripathi,Mirza Ataulla Beg,Sachin Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dheerendra Kr. Agnihotri,Mrs.Suniti Sachan,Pramod Singh,Rajendra Prasad Gupta Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Sachin Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Mrs. Suniti Sachan, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/private respondent and Sri Piyush Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The instant application is filed for cancellation of bail granted to opposite party no.2, namely, Ravi Prakash Singh s/o Ram Pal Singh vide order dated 24.04.2023 passed in Bail Application No. 5497 of 2023 (Ravi Prakash Singh vs. State of U.P.). A further prayer to pass an order to take opposite party no.2 into custody in Crl. Case No. 37793 of 2023 (State Vs. Ravi Prakash Singh and Ors.) arising out of Crime No. 361 of 2022 u/s 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Bakshi Ka Talab (B.K.T.), District- Lucknow.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant, who is permanent resident of House No. 551K/425, Madhuban Nagar, Sukhlal Marg, Alambagh, District- Lucknow, was retired on 31.07.2021 from the post of Branch Manager, State Bank of India.
It has further been submitted that the facts of the case are that the applicant is recorded tenure holder and is in possession of Khasra Nos. 312, 313 and 318 (new khasra numbers) total area 2.6290 hectares situated in Village- Kunaura, P.S.- Itaunja, Tehsil- Bakshi Ka Talab, District- Lucknow. The applicant purchased a land bearing Khasra No. 208/1.839 hec. from Rajaram son of Ram Awtar, who was the owner and was in possession of the said land situated in Village- Kunaura, Police Station - Itaunja, Tehsil- Bakshi Ka Talab, District- Lucknow. The sale deed of the said land is registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Malihabad in Book No. 1, Zild No. 56, Pages 201 to 214, at Serial No. 1342 on 27.05.1992. The applicant purchased the above-mentioned land in the year 1992 through three registered sale deeds having old Khasra Nos. 208/1.839 hectare and 246/1.784 respectively situated in Village- Kunaura, Tehsil- B.K.T., District- Lucknow and after consolidation proceedings, the said Khasra numbers were renumbered to the present Khasra Nos. 312, 313 and 318. Thereafter, the aforesaid property was mutated in the name of the applicant, namely, Ravi Prakash Singh s/o Ram Lal Singh in the revenue record removing the name of Rajaram s/o Ram Awtar in the light of the order dated 18.09.1992 passed by the competent authority in Case No 1253 of 1992.
It has further been submitted that the second Khasra land was owned by two sets of land owners namely, Mr. Baijnath Singh s/o Ram Dayal Singh, who was owner in possession of half of the land bearing Khasra No. 246/1.784 hect., whereas, Rajaram Singh & Shiv Shankar Singh both sons of Jaddu Singh and were the joint owners in possession of the other half of the land bearing Khasra No. 246/1.784 hectares. The applicant purchased the entire portion of land belonging to Rajaram Singh & Shiv Shankar Singh, both sons of Jaddu Singh, i.e. half of the land bearing Khasra No. 246/1.784 hect., situated in the said village through sale deed, which is registered in the office of Sub-Registrar Malihabad in Book No. 1, Zild No. 80, Pages 355 to 372 at Serial No. 2511 on 29.10.1992, mentioning the sellers Rajaram Singh & Shiv Shankar Singh both sons of Jaddu Singh. Thereafter, under the order dated 15.01.1993 passed by the competent authority in Case No. 231/92-93, the name of the applicant- Ravi Prakash Singh s/o Ram Lal Singh was mutated. Later on, other part of the land belonging to Baijnath Singh s/o Ram Dayal Singh was also purchased by the applicant through sale deed, which is registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Malihabad in Book No.1, Zild No. 56, Pages 183 to 200 at Serial no. 1341 on 27.05.1992. On the basis of above sale deed, the rest part of aforesaid plot was also mutated in the name of the applicant vide order dated 09.07.2004 passed by the competent authority in Case No. 41 of 2004 and the name of the applicant was mutated by removing the name of Baijnath son of Ram Dayal Singh. On the basis of above-mentioned three sale deeds, Document No. 2511 of 1992, Document No. 1342 of 1992 and Document No. 1341 of 1992 as well as the respective mutation orders passed in the revenue records, as the applicant was owner and was in possession of the above-mentioned land, the Consolidation Officer consolidated two chaks and while developing the revenue records, Jot Chakbandi Aaakar Patr CH-41, prepared a single khata/khatauni of the applicant and renumbered the old khasra numbers of the said land to Khasra Nos. 312, 313 and 318. After preparation of the above-mentioned Jot Chakbandi Aakar Patr CH-41, final consolidation record- Jot Chakbandi Aakar Patr CH-45 was prepared as Khata no. 176 in reference to above-mentioned Khasra land, wherein, the father's name of the applicant was wrongly mentioned as "Ram Pal Singh" instead of "Ram Lal Singh".
It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the process of correction of the father's name of the applicant in the revenue record/Khatauni was also initiated by preferring a Suit (Ravi Prakash Singh Vs. State) u/s 38(1) of the Revenue Code, 2006, which is pending before Sub-Divisional magistrate, Tehsil- B.K.T., Lucknow. The applicant is in possession over the property in question and the said land was being cultivated by him through his servants and being in banking service, he was unable to take care of the day-to-day affairs of his above-mentioned khasra land personally, due to which, he entrusted his family friend, namely, Arun Kumar Singh to look after the said land. Later on, Power of Attorney was also executed in favour of Arun Kumar Singh, which is duly registered in Book No. 4, Zild No. 50, Pages 229 to 240 at Serial No. 172 in the office of Sub-Registrar, B.K.T., Lucknow on 30.12.2021.
4. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that when it came into the knowledge of the applicant that a group of Pankaj Kumar, Amit Singh, Lasa Din, Keshan, Ramesh, Amarkant Awasthi @ Bhailu Maharaj along with others are actively involved in land grabbing with association of the officials on the basis of forged documents and the said group was trying to grab the land of applicant's wife, namely, Mrs. Bandana Singh situated near above-mentioned khasra of the land in the same Village- Kunaura, P.S.- Itaunja, Tehsil- B.K.T., Lucknow by getting forged Power of Attorney and forged sale deed registered on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, impersonating the applicant's wife, an F.I.R. bearing No. 0067 of 2022 u/s 420, 467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C., 1860 was lodged at P.S.- B.K.T., Lucknow by wife of the applicant. It has also been submitted that the lady, who had impersonated the applicant's wife, is still absconding and the police has not been able to trace the said lady till now.
It has next been submitted that the private respondent, namely, Ravi Prakash Singh s/o Ram Pal Singh is an active member of above-mentioned land grabbers gang. It has vehemently been submitted that the modus operandi of this gang is to firstly get the forged Voter Identity Card prepared using illegal means, thereupon, these people use the said fake Voter Identitiy Card to get genuine Aadhar Card of the same person, whereafter, they use the said illegally obtained Aadhar Card as legal documents to impersonate the real individual. The aforesaid fact can easily be substantiated from a bare perusal of the forged Voter Identity Card obtained by the impostor- Ravi Prakash Singh and Bandana Singh and interestingly, both the Voter Identity Cards bear the same identity number, i.e., HGJ8787585, which is impossible.
Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that after preparing the above-mentioned forged and fabricated I.D.s, opposite party no.2 succeeded in impersonating the applicant and got a forged Power of Attorney registered in favour of co-accused- Pankaj Kumar. The said forged Power of Attorney was executed by opposite party no.2 claiming to be applicant, which is clear act of forgery in terms of the definition of the said offense. The said Power of Attorney is registered in Book No.4, Zild No. 52, Pages 373 to 384 at Serial No. 62 in the office of Sub-Registrar, B.K.T., Lucknow on 01.06.2022. As soon as the applicant became aware of the above-mentioned fact, he immediately made a complaint to P.S.- B.K.T., Lucknow, but since, the police paid no heed to the complaint made by the applicant, the applicant registered complaint on the Chief Minister Complaint Portal on 24.07.2022, which was registered as Complaint No. 40015722056882. Thereafter, a reminder of the said complaint was also filed on 25.08.2022, which was registered as Complaint No. 40015722066318. Further, a Suit No. 2083 of 2022 (Ravi Prakash Singh s/o Ram Lal Singh Vs. Ravi Prakash Singh s/o Ram Pal Singh and Ors.) was filed by the applicant before learned Civil Judge, Hawali, Lucknow on 25.08.2022 for cancellation of the aforesaid illegal Power of Attorney.
It has next been submitted that due to inaction of the concerned authorities of the State Government to investigate and prosecute the opposite party, he became emboldened and executed another forged sale deed of the Khasra No. 313 admeasuring area about 1.549 hectare on 08.09.2022, claiming to be the applicant, in favour of his gang member/ co-accused, namely, Amit Singh s/o Mahendra Pratap, in reference, which was registered in Book No.1, Zild No. 14730, Pages 225 to 240 at Serial no. 20226 in the office of Sub-Registrar, B.K.T., Lucknow, which is again clear act of forgery in terms of definition of the said offense. Thereafter, opposite party no.2 executed another forged document i.e. an agreement to sell, in reference to the Khasra Nos. 312 and 318 admeasuring area about 1.0800 hectare, in favour of his gang member/co-accused, namely, Pankaj Kumar s/o Indal Kumar (Ex MLA), which was registered in Book No.1, Zild No. 14735, Pages 29 to 42 in the office of Sub-Registrar, B.K.T., Lucknow, claiming to be the applicant.
It has also been submitted that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer only arrested the opposite party no.2 on 20.01.2023 and the charge-sheet u/s 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C. was also filed only against opposite party no.2 without investigating and without evaluating the role of other accused persons. It has vehemently been submitted that the Committee comprising Assistant Consolidation Officer, Tehsil- B.K.T., Lucknow, Chakbandikarta and Lekhpal Consolidation had given a report to the Investigating Officer that the land in question belongs to the applicant and an error occurred while entering the father's name of the applicant during consolidation proceedings in the revenue records.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that opposite party no.2 moved a bail application, in which, it is stated that he resided in Madhuban Nagar, Alambagh, Lucknow, and on the date of application, he was residing in Village- Chandanapur, Post- Mahona, Lucknow, which is absolutely false and misleading and the correct fact is that the applicant owns and resides at House No. (old no.68) New No. 551K/425, Madhuban Nagar, Alambagh, Lucknow since his birth. The date of birth of the applicant is 18.07.1961, who had given his Aadhar Card at the time of registration of the F.I.R. in question, however, the police officer uploaded the year of birth of the applicant erroneously as 1987. The said mistake was immediately informed by the applicant to the police officer at the time of receiving the print of the said F.I.R., but it was informed to the applicant that the said mistake could not be corrected as it has been uploaded on CCTNS Portal. However, though the police officer ensured that the said mistake will not cause any effect on the investigation of the instant case, but the Bail Application of opposite party no.2 was allowed on the ground that in the F.I.R., year of birth of the applicant is mentioned as 1987 and as per the prosecution case, the property was purchased by the applicant in the year 1992 when the applicant was aged about five years. It has been submitted that the opposite party no.2 is a habitual impostor in changing identities and he obtained the Bail Order dated 24.04.2023 by misleading this Court.
6. In pursuance of directions of this Court, an affidavit was filed by Mr. Dharmendra Jain, Sub Inspector, P.S.- Itaunja, District- Lucknow on 13.09.2023. In paragraph no.4 of which, it is stated that he made inquiry about Ravi Prakash Singh s/o Ram Pal Singh r/o Village- Chandanapur, Mahona, P.S.- Itaunja, District- Lucknow, during which, he made conversation with Village Development Officer and also investigated the family register (kutumb register). The Sub-Inspector has also stated that Village Development Officer- Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Yadav and Village Pradhan, namely, Smt. Suman Singh had given written certificate on the basis of kutumb register etc. that there is no evidence with regard to opposite party no.2- Ravi Prakash Singh s/o Ram Pal Singh r/o Village- Chandanapur, Mahona, P.S.- Itaunja, District- Lucknow regarding the fact that he is a resident of Village- Chandanapur, Mahona, P.S.- Itaunja, District- Lucknow.
In the aforesaid affidavit, the Officer also stated that opposite party no.2 is resident of Village- Mohiuddinpur, P.S.- Kothi, District- Barabanki and marriage of his sister- Pranpati Devi was solemnized with Devi Dayal r/o Village- Chandanapur, P.S.- Itaunja, District- Lucknow. It is also stated therein that opposite party no.2 sometimes used to come at his sister's house, but he is not resident of Village- Chandanapur, P.S.- Itaunja, District- Lucknow.
7. Kutumb register of opposite party no.2 is also annexed with the affidavit of Mr. Dharmendra Jain. In the said kutumb register, names of seven persons, namely, Devi Dayal s/o Parag Singh, Pranpati w/o Devi Dayal Singh, Lalta Singh s/o Devi Dayal Singh, Sangeeta Singh w/o Lalta Singh, Umesh Kumar s/o Devi Dayal, Rakesh alias Ram Kumar Singh s/o Devi Dayal Singh and Shobha Singh d/o Lalta Singh are mentioned.
8. Drawing attention of the Court on the supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant on 24.04.2025, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in paragraph no.2 of this affidavit, it is categorically stated that opposite party no.2- Ravi Prakash Singh s/o Ram Pal Singh has now produced fabricated and backdated sale deed claiming ownership since 28.03.1989 relating the sale deed no. 1646/89 executed on 28.03.1989. It has also been submitted that there are many discrepancies which are evident from naked eye from the perusal of sale deed, viz. (i) mismatch of handwriting from all previous numbered sale deed i.e. 1643/1989, 1644/1989, 1645/1989, 1341/1992, (ii) signature mismatch of one A.K. Bajpai, (iii) sale deed was compared by his writing as completed by A Kumar and his signature was also mismatched with previous sale deed done in the year 1989, (iv) mismatch of the area as mentioned in the said sale deed i.e. 246/7 bigha, 5 biswa, 2 biswanshi, which clearly reveal the forgery committed by opposite party no.2.
It has lastly been submitted that the opposite party no.2 also opened a bank account showing the name of wife of the applicant as nominee in Bank of Baroda bearing Account No. 56810100009791, in which, Aadhar Card Number of opposite party no.2 is shown as 760116306246.
It has, thus, been submitted that the bail order dated 24.04.2023, by which the opposite party no.2 was granted bail, is liable to be cancelled and an order may be passed for confinement of opposite party no.2.
9. On the other hand, Smt. Suniti Sachan, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant and submitted that opposite party no.2 never misused the liberty of bail.
However, on being asked, Smt. Sachan is unable to explain the fact that though the present application for cancellation of bail is pending since 18.05.2023, why reply or any other affidavit has not been filed till date.
10. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the instant bail cancellation application as well as other relevant materials, it is evident that date of birth of the applicant is 18.07.1961, but in the F.I.R., year of his date of birth was wrongly mentioned due to negligence of police officials. It is further evident from the aforesaid report of the Sub Inspector that opposite party no.2 is not a resident of the Village- Chandanapur, Post- Mahona, P.S.- B.K.T., District- Lucknow and is a resident of Village- Mohiuddinpur, P.S.- Kothi, District- Barabanki.
Admittedly, all these facts were not mentioned in the bail application of opposite party no.2. It is also evident from the record that opposite party no.2 opened a bank account, in which, he had given address of the applicant as well as name of applicant's wife is made as nominee. However, the opposite party no.2 had appeared before this Court and had categorically stated that his marriage was not solemnized, but he was in live-in relationship with a lady, namely, Seema Devi d/o Gaya Prasad r/o Bibiyapur, P.S.- Kothi, District- Barabanki and she is no more.
In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that opposite party no.2 obtained his bail by placing misleading facts and documents in relation to date of birth of applicant and address of opposite party no.2.
11. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, the instant bail cancellation application is allowed. The bail order dated 24.04.2023 passed in Bail No. 5497 of 2023 (Ravi Prakash Singh vs. State of U.P.), by which opposite party no.2 was granted bail, is hereby set aside.
12. The opposite party no.2 is directed to surrender before the Court concerned within a period of two weeks from today.
13. In case the opposite party no.2 fails to surrender within the stipulated time, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow is directed to take necessary action and also inform to this court.
14. Commissioner of Police, Lucknow and Superintendent of Police, Barabanki are also directed to ensure the presence of opposite party no.2 before the Court concerned.
15. The trial Court is also directed to conclude the trial expeditiously without giving unnecessary adjournments.
16. Director General, Special Task Force, U.P. is also directed to go through the facts of the case and to ensure further investigation of the crime in question to work out on the issue of the involvement of other persons in the crime with the help of officials of revenue record, and shall ensure that a supplementary report be filed to the Court concerned.
17. Office is directed to communicate this order to Commissioner of Police, Lucknow, Superintendent of Police, Barabanki, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, Director General, Special Task Force, U.P. and the trial Court for necessary compliance, forthwith.
Order Date :- July 22, 2025 Arpan