Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93945 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12030 of 2025 Applicant :- Raju Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nanhe Lal Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Nanhe Lal Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 669 of 2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 504, 506 of IPC, Police Station - Kotwali Lalitpur, District - Lalitpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have executed the sale-deed without title in favour of the informant but subsequently it was revealed that the land belong to someone else and the house was being constructed on the said plot. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The case of civil in nature has been converted into criminal case by the informant. The title of the land in question was mutated in the name of informant, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that criminal history of five cases assigned to the applicant stands explained in the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is languishing in jail since 20.01.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. 8. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that the title of the land in question was mutated in the name of informant, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant- Raju, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 12. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date:- 30.5.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad