IMPORTANT POINT
Anticipatory bail can be granted when the dispute is civil in nature and the applicant cooperates with the investigation.

JUDGMENT :

Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.

1. The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime/F.I.R No.1163/2023, under Sections 420, 425, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. This Court while granting interim protection to the applicant vide order dated 29.08.2024 has passed the following order:-

"Heard learned counsel the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime/F.I.R No.1163/2023, under Sections 420, 425, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki.

It is alleged in the F.I.R. that nazul land registered at page No.89 vide order dated 29.08.1956/11.10.1956 in the name of Kapura Devi to the tune of 66,844 square ft. In the said record, no order number is written neither there is reference of order on the paper book, the name of the officer who has made the endorsement is also not on the record neither there is any stamp of the concerned office. It is alleged that due to this reason the alleged record appears to be forged. It is further alleged that at page No.2 on 12-16 line whitener has been used which further makes it suspicious.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is not named in the F.I.R. He has made following submissions:-

"Ram Rajeshwar Bali was the owner of the property Khasra Plot No. 315/1, Obari, Civil Lines bearing Municipal No. B/1049/614/T 364 to 368 also known as B-1365, Mohalla Begum Ganj, P.S. Kotwali, District Barabanki.

After the death of Ram Rajeshwar Bali, Ram Dinanath Bali, who was the legal heir, became the owner of the aforesaid property.

Kapura Devi had purchased the property from Dinanath Bali on 03.03.1955.

After the death of Kapura Devi, her son Nandanlal Jain became the owner of this property by inheritance.

In the year 1998, Nandlal Jain transferred his property to Dr. Vinay Kumar Jain through gift deed.

From 1998 till now, applicant Vinay Kumar Jain is the sole owner of the said property Khasra No. 315.

Dr Padma Shukla the then CMO was under tenancy in her individual capacity, but after the transfer of Dr Padma Shukla in the year 1991 the premises would be deemed to be vacated, but the District Administration started to treat the land as CMO Residence. After 1995, CMO Dr. Surendra Kumar had stopped paying rent. Therefore, the Applicant proceedings U/s. 16 of the Act. instituted the

The applicant applied to District Magistrate Barabanki on 25.01.99 for free holding of the said Araji Nazul.

On 28.08.1999, Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) ordered to deposit Rs. 6,10,619/-in the treasury within 90 days. After the applicant deposited the said amount, a deed of sale was executed in favor of the applicant by Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Barabanki.

After the deed of sale by the Additional District Magistrate on 22.07.2000, the applicant was not given possession of the said premises, since it was being used illegally as residence of CMO.

Then the petitioner filed an application for release of the said property in terms of section 16 of the UP-Act No. 13 of 1972 on march, 2007 for deemed vacancy.

The said Application was rejected by means of order dated 30.03.2011 primarily on the ground that the property in question comes under ownership of State Government and has been in use and occupation of the Chief Medical Officer.

The Petitioner filed the Revision No. 01/2011 in the court of Additional Sessions Court No. 01, which was also rejected by the Learned Court.

Therefore, the Applicant challenged the Order dated 30.03.2011 and 06.09.2012 by filing WRITA No. 1000081 of 2015 (Dr. Vinay Kumar Jain vs. State of U.P. & Others) before this Hon'ble Court, wherein after exchange of pleadings, this Hon'ble Court allowed the said petition vide order dated