Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 165493 (ALL)

VAHEED AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO. AND ANOTHER

ABAIL/1042/2025 · 2025-09-18

Subhash Vidyarthi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1042 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Satyendra Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Pankaj Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant. 2. The instant application has been filed by the applicants seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R./Case Crime No.1018 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Gonda. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 05.12.2023, in furtherance to an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., against six persons, including the applicant, stating that the complainant had purchased 1/3 share of land of Shabbir Ali son of Moosae on 23.06.1978 and a sale deed in respect of his remaining 2/3 share was executed by Rajjab Ali son of Moosae and Maasook Ali son of Moharram Ali and Amina wife of Moharram Ali on 29.03.1978. The applicants' name was mutated in the revenue records but the name of Sabbir Ali also continued to be recorded in the Khatauni and co-accused persons Laik Khan and Firoz Khan, who are sons of Sabbir Ali son of Moosae, got executed two sale deeds with the Jafar Raza Vaheed (applicant No.1) which was registered on 16.02.2023. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application, it has been stated that the applicants are innocent persons, having no criminal history and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. 5. The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and he has submitted Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manoj Kumar Misra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Dinesh Kumar Mishra Vaheed And Another .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) that the allegations have been established during the investigation and a charge sheet has been submitted on 24.02.2024. 6. The learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the application and he has submitted that the applicants have executed the sale deed although they have no title. 7. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view of the fact that even as per the F.I.R. version, the name of the father of the co-accused persons Laik Khan and Firoz Khan was recorded in the revenue records; that the applicants are the purchasers of the property from the persons whose name was recorded in the revenue record and that they have no criminal history whereas the investigation already stands concluded, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicants. 8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicants before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court : (i) that the applicants shall make himself/herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the applicants 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court. (iv) that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v) that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. September 18, 2025 S. Shivhare ABAIL No. 1042 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench