Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 202813 (ALL)

HAZARI LAL v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. HOME LKO AND ANOTHER

NABAIL/1576/2025 · 2025-10-28

Karunesh Singh Pawar

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 482 BNSS No. - 1576 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 170/2025, U/S-319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) BNS and Section 2/3 Prevention to Damages to Public Property Act, Police Station: Dhanepur, District: Gonda. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there has been an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. It is stated that the applicant had executed a sale deed in respect of a shop on 02.03.2024. Earlier, a suit was filed seeking cancellation of a sale deed dated 04.09.1975, which was dismissed by the trial court. Against such dismissal, a first appeal being Civil Appeal No. 105 of 1985 was preferred, which was allowed and decreed. Thereafter, the respondents and others filed Second Appeal No. 577 of 1987 before this Court, which was also dismissed, thereby affirming the judgment and decree passed in the first appeal. Subsequently, the applicant instituted Execution Case No. 463 of 2019, wherein a warrant under Order XXI Rule 35 CPC was issued, and the applicant was ultimately put in possession of the property. The execution report was duly submitted before the executing court. After obtaining possession, the applicant executed a sale deed in respect of the shop in question. It is further clarified that no sale deed has been executed by the applicant concerning any pond, as has been erroneously alleged. It is further submitted that, to the best of the applicant’s knowledge, no Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Praveen Tripathi, Sm Abdullah Husain Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Hazari Lal .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko And Another .....Opposite Party(s) proceedings for cancellation of the alleged sale deed have been initiated by the Revenue Department, nor has any action under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code been initiated by the Gram Pradhan. The dispute, as it stands, is essentially civil in nature. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that if the accused is granted anticipatory bail, he undertakes to comply with all conditions imposed by the Court. He shall fully cooperate with the investigation and shall not misuse the liberty granted to him. Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, submitting that the investigation is still in progress. Considering the fact that the dispute is purely civil in nature, the long history of civil litigation concerning the disputed property, and the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant to cooperate in the investigation, I am of the view that the applicant deserves to be granted anticipatory bail. Accordingly, in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail, subject to his full cooperation in the ongoing investigation. In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid Case Crime number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned with the following conditions:- The applicant shall report to the investigating officer within twenty days from today. He shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. The application is allowed. October 28, 2025/R.C. NABAIL No. 1576 of 2025 2 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench