Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:69411 Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36935 of 2024 Applicant :- Bhupendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Deepak Kumar Pandey,G.A.,Rakesh Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J. 1. List revised. None appears for the informant. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Chandan Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. By means of the instant bail application, the applicant, Bhupendra, seeks bail in Case Crime No. 328 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Sahawar, District Kasganj. 4. The F.I.R. dated 17.10.2023 was lodged by the informant against the applicant and two other named accused alleging therein that named accused Veerpal Singh @ Raju suggested him to purchase a land and he also got him talk with one person to be the owner of the land, thereafter, on 09.08.2023 the accused Veerpal Singh @ Raju took the informant at Tehsil along with owner of the land Narpati Singh and one witness Radhey Shyam got executed sale deed of the land in lieu of one lakh eighty thousand rupees. Thereafter, on 18.08.2023 one person namely Naresh Kumar met the informant and informed that he is the real owner of the said land which he had purchased and by making conspiracy the accused Veerpal Singh @ Raju, Radhey Shyam and Bhupendra (present applicant) had got executed sale deed in his favour. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. The first informant had not disclosed that who had received the alleged money. The applicant had not executed the alleged sale deed. He had not received any money either in cash or by other transaction made into his account. The matter relates to civil dispute but the informant had given colour of criminal proceeding. The applicant is in jail since 10.05.2024, with no criminal history. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail by contending that the statement of the deed writer of the alleged sale deed namely Hari Om was recorded by the police which is recorded in C.D.-3. In his statement before the police the said deed writer had given cogent evidence to the police by stating that he works as Deed Writer in Tehsil Sahawar. On 09.08.2023, accused Veerpal Singh @ Raju met him and he had given him Adhar Card of Naresh, S/o Narpati Singh and copy of Gata No. 175, wherein the land was mutated in the name of Naresh, S/o Narpati and asked him to get executed the sale deed. Thereafter, the sale deed was executed. Later on it came into light to him that seller of the said land was Bhupendra (present applicant) and not the said person Naresh. Learned A.G.A. thus, submits that applicant had himself impersonated him as the owner of the land and got executed the forged sale deed in favour of the informant. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail at this stage.. 7. Keeping in view submissions of learned counsel for the parties, gravity of offence, nature of allegations and all the attending facts and circumstances of the case including the fact that applicant had himself impersonated him as the owner of he land and got executed the forged sale deed, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant-Bhupendra, is rejected. Order Date :- 1.5.2025 Mustaqeem. Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad