Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18982 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1520 of 2025 Applicant :- Rampal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko . And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Prakash Singh,Raghvendra P. Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhishek Misra,Anuj Kudesia Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State-opposite party, Sri Abhishek Misra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of first informant and perused the record. 2. The first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime/F.I.R. No.0022 of 2023 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Chinhat, District Lucknow. 3. As per contents of First Information Report, the property in question was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1894") with Notification under Sections 4, 6 read with Section 17 of Act, 1894 having been issued on 26.02.2001 and 04.06.2001 whereafter the property was transferred to the cooperative society on 12.11.2002 but the applicant along with co-accused allegedly executed 73 sale deeds with regard to the said property subsequently. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and that even till today, it is his name which continues to be recorded in the revenue record and he is also in possession over the said property. It is also submitted that a dispute which is purely civil in nature is being sought to be given a criminal colour. It is submitted that the applicant is under incarceration since 16.01.2025 without any previous criminal history. 5. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of informant have opposed bail application with the submissions that once Notification in the Gazette were issued in the year 2001 with compensation also having been accepted. There was no occasion for him to have executed the sale deed subsequently and, therefore, sections imputed against him are clearly made out. 6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears from allegations made in the F.I.R. that the property in question was acquired with notifications having been issued under Sections 4, 6 and 17 of the Act, 1894 in the year 2001 but the applicant executed sale deed with regard to the same subsequently. 7. In view thereof, this Court does not find any occasion to interfere to grant any indulgence. The instant bail application, therefore, stands rejected. Order Date :- 4.4.2025 Shubhankar Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench