Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133481 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26967 of 2025 Applicant :- Anuj Kumar Singhal @ Anuj Mohan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rishika Raj Singhal,Shivendra Raj Singhal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J. 1. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is permitted to make necessary incorporation in the memo of bail application during the course of the day. 2. Heard Shri Shivendra Raj Singhal, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant and the co-accused, Yogendra Mohan are the real brothers, who executed a power of attorney in favour of Rahul Kant on 19.04.2006, who executed three sale deeds of the property at Khasra No. 504 in favour of other co-accused persons namely Rajnees Singh and Vivekanand Singh. Being aggrieved the aforesaid sale deeds the first informant lodged the F.I.R. dated 28.10.2008 alleging that he is the attorney holder of applicant and the co-accused Yogendra Mohan and as such the sale deeds are forged documents and the accused have grabbed the said property. After lodging of the F.I.R. the investigation commenced and the statement of informant-Somdutt was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which he alleged that he got certain part of the said land through his mother's will and remaining part was purchased by him in 1983 and the accused having no title, right or interest had dishonestly executed those three sale deeds by creating forged documents. The Investigating Agency while going through the revenue records found and after collecting material submitted final report on 22.08.2009, but the higher authorities directed for further investigation of the matter. During the course of further investigation the Sub Divisional Magistrate conducted inquiry and submitted its inquiry report to the revenue authorities specifically mentioning therein the measurement of land of first informant were not found in consonance with the measurement of inspecting authority as well as of property in question and the informant had encroached more land than he has owned. Thus, the investigating agency confirmed the final report dated 22.08.2009. Thereafter, the informant filed protest petition upon which investigating agency was directed to re-investigate the matter and the investigating agency after re-investigating the matter again submitted final report. The said final report was again challenged by filing protest petition, whereupon the court concerned again rejected the final report and directed for further investigation. Thereafter the investigating agency recorded subsequent statement of informant in which informant reiterated his previous statement. Learned counsel further submits that the investigation is still going on. There is no substance against the applicant. There is no allegation that the applicant is the creator of forged document, which allegation is made against the co-accused, Rahul Kant, Rajni Kant and Vivek Kant. Thus, false allegations have been made and the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case with ulterior motive. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that the applicant is in jail since 17.06.2025, with no previous criminal history into his credit. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence, but he could not dispute the above submissions made on behalf of applicant. 5. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence and without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed. 6. Let the applicant-Anuj Kumar Singhal @ Anuj Mohan, be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 705 of 2008, under Sections 420, 120-B, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur, on executing a personal bond and furnishing two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court. iv) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission. v) The applicant 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 such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. 7. In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant in accordance with law. Order Date :- 6.8.2025 Mustaqeem. Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad