The delay in filing the FIR, pending civil disputes, and the appellant's criminal history were considered in granting bail under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Hemant Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for appellant, learned AGA as well as Shri Abhishek Misra, learned counsel for respondent and perused the record.

2. This appeal has been preferred under Section 14 (A) (2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against impugned order dated 13.09.2021 passed by Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Lucknow in bail application 5852 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 575 of 2019, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 448, 323, 354, 504, 506, 120-B IPC and Sections 3(1) r s & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Wazirganj, District-Lucknow, whereby the bail application of the appellant/applicant has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the first informant lodged the FIR on 09.10.2019 with allegation that the first informant purchased the plot from Parvatiya Sahkari Awas Samiti in the year 2008 situated in Village Nizamuddinpur, Tehsil and District Lucknow. The real owner of the plot bearing Khasra No.2 was Moharram Ali, who had already sold the whole area of Khasra no.2 to the Samiti by registered sale deed. After death of Moharram Ali, land grabber-appellant by hatching conspiracy purchased the said land from the legal heirs of late Moharram Ali by forged sale deed. Thus, the F.I.R. was lodged against the appellant and other co-accused under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 448, 120-B, 352 IPC. But after arrest of the appellant, remand of the appellant has been taken by the investigating officer under Sections 406, 419, 420, 448, 323, 354, 504, 506, 120-B IPC and Section 3(1) r s and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Prior to the alleged incident, the appellant is not known to the complainant that she belongs to SC/ST. As per FIR version, no allegation of SC/ST Act is made out against the appellant. It is further submitted that the appellant and other co-accused have purchased parts of the aforesaid land by three different sale deed from the legal heirs of late Moharram Ali namely Mohd. Aleem, Mohd. Majeed and Smt. Jareen. Thereafter, the name of the appellant has been mutated in the revenue records. After mutation, several civil litigation were run between the parties and later on, Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow has cancelled the name of appellant. Being aggrieved from the order of the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow, the appellant filed a writ petition before this Court bearing No.13741 (MS) of 2019, in which this Court directed that the parties shall maintain status quo vide order dated 29.5.2019 (Annexure-3).

5. Learned counsel for appellant further submits that statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 4.8.2020, in which no specific role is assigned to the appellant and general allegation has been levelled against appellant. The investigating officer further recorded the statement of complainant on 25.8.2020, in which she improved the prosecution case by making several allegations against the accused persons. It is further submitted that after the death of of Moharram Ali, his legal heirs namely Mohd. Aleem, Mohd. Majeed and Smt. Jareen have mutated their name in Khasra No.2 measuring 1.294 hectare and after mutation, they have sold the said land to the appellant and thereafter the name of appellant was also mutated in revenue records.

6. Learned counsel for appellant further submits that on perusal of evidence, it transpires that the appellant is the bonafide purchaser of the land in question. It is further submitted that at the time of purchasing of the land in question, the appellant has no knowledge that the said land has already been sold by late Moharram Ali. Thus, the appellat is also sufferer.

7. Learned counsel for appellant submits that no specific role is assigned to the appellant for hatching any conspiracy. Several civil disputes between the