JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Imran Ullah, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nand Lal Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant bail cancellation application has been filed on behalf of the applicant (complainant) with the prayer to cancel the bail granted to opposite party no. 2 by the court concerned in Case Crime No. 520 of 2020 under Sections 147, 420, 467, 468, 471, 387, 447, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station George Town, District Prayagraj.

PROSECUTION STORY:

3. The informant Smt. Shanti Rani Agarwal lodged an FIR at P.S. George Town on 30.9.2020 stating that she had purchased the plot no. 8/49 at C.Y. Chintamani Road, George Town, Prayagraj, from its original owner Dr. Pant. Adjacent to it, Anil Dwivedi @ Gulab Dwivedi had purchased a plot of dimension 30 x 72 ft. in resale. Subsequent to it, opposite party no. 2 Anil Dwivedi had illegally taken possession on the part of the land of the informant and had even undertaken illegal construction. On being objected by the informant, the opposite party no. 2 is stated to have threatened the applicant/informant alongwith his associates and had even demanded a ransom of Rs. 15 lakhs. The said illegal construction was ordered to be demolished by the Prayagraj Development Authority. The opposite party no. 2 is stated to have prepared forged documents and is stated to have again demanded ransom from her.

RIVAL CONTENTIONS:

CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT:

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that after lodging of the FIR, the final report (charge sheet) was submitted by the investigating agency on 25.1.2021 and the cognizance was taken on 2.2.2021. The applicant challenged the said charge sheet and the order of cognizance by filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as Application No. 10351 of 2021 before this Court and it was dismissed on merits vide order dated 6.10.2021.

5. The opposite party no. 2 filed an anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Judge, Allahabad, which was not pressed and was dismissed as such.

6. Subsequent to it, the applicant moved the second anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Judge, Allahabad, which was allowed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Allahabad vide order dated 23.12.2021 till the filing of the final report (charge sheet). The said order was taken by the applicant by concealing the fact that already the charge sheet was filed on 25.1.2021 and the cognizance had been taken by the court on 2.2.2021 and even the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed on 6.10.2021.

7. Learned counsel has further stated that subsequent to it, the opposite party no. 2 challenged the said order of this Court dated 6.10.2021 passed in the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., by filing Special Leave to Petition (Criminal) No. 9987 of 2021, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 5.1.2022.

8. The applicant moved the third anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Judge, Allahabad, which was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Allahabad vide order dated 25.2.2022, by taking into consideration the fact that the applicant was already granted bail till submission of final report (charge sheet), as such, he was also entitled for anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial.

9. Learned counsel has next stated that the said order has been granted as the opposite party no. 2 has played fraud with the court, as such, is a nullity. No sanctity can be accorded to the said order as the first order on merits passed by this Court on the second anticipatory bail application of the applicant dated 1.11.2021 was taken by keeping the court in dark about the fact that the final report (charge sheet) had already been filed.

10. Learned counsel has stated that in light of the judgement of this Court passed in Shivam vs. State of U.P. and Another, AIR Online 2021 All. 484, the applicant was not entitled for bail, as such, he has concealed t