Nafees Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12260 of 2023 Applicant :- Nafees Ahmad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shivendra Nath Singh,Akhilesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶1List has been revised.

¶2Heard Sri Shivendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for applicant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned A.G.A. for State and also perused the material available on record.

¶3The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for protection in regard to FIR/Case Crime No. 621 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C., P.S.- Loni, District-Ghaziabad.

¶4As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have sold the plot of land measuring 50 square yards to the informant for a consideration of Rs. 4-5 lakhs in the year 2022 without title. Later on, the co-accused persons are stated to have not let the applicant to get the boundary wall erected on the said plot.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel has next stated that the applicant is the bonafide person and is the holder of the title of the said land. The said plot is the larger plot of land, as such, the matter is of partition and the applicant has been wrongly nominated in the FIR. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶6Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground that the same plot was earlier on sold twice by the applicant in the year 2017 and 2021 without any title. Rather, the plot belongs to one Manoj, Ashok and Gyanendra. The present case is a clear cut case of impersonation and forgery, as such, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶7Considering the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also the facts of the case, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant as the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant pertain to regular bail application and cannot be agitated at this stage u/s 438 Cr.P.C.

¶8In view of the above, the present anticipatory bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

¶9It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of anticipatory bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. (Justice Krishan Pahal) Order Date :- 20.11.2023 Shalini High Court of Judicature at Allahabad