The court denies anticipatory bail based on the allegations of impersonation in a fraudulent land transaction.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH ORAL ORDER

2 18-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Jakkanpur P. S. Case No. 256 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 34 of the IPC.

3 As per the FIR, the prosecution case is that the informant - Pranav Kumar entered into an agreement, executed in respect of purchase of a piece of land for a consideration amount of Rs. 1.28 crore through a broker Dr. Dharmendra Kumar with the land owner Smt. Sushma Sharma and her son Sharwan Kumar, after being assured that the land was free from dispute. Subsequently, when the informant attempted to start construction, local people objected and stopped the work, whereupon he came to know that the land was disputed one. It is alleged that Dr. Dharmendra Kumar returned Rs. 55 lakh to the informant, promising to repay the remaining amount, which has not been returned so far.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is quite innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case as a result of conspiracy by the co-accused Dr. Dharmendra Kumar who hatched the whole conspiracy and illegally sold the land in question to the informant by way of alleged illegal sale deed dated 14.12.2022. The petitioner is not named in the FIR but during investigation petitioner's name has been transpired in this case.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. This court finds that though petitioner is not named in FIR but during investigation it came to light that sale deed was executed in favour of informant Pranav Kumar by Smt. Sushma Sharma and Sharwan Kumar on 14.12.2022. In the aforesaid sale deed petitioner impersonated himself as Nishant Kumar, son of Smt. Sushma Sharma. Whereas petitioner is brother in law of said Sharwan Kumar as stated in para 7 of bail application. In the entire bail application petitioner has no where stated that he has not appeared as an identifier during execution of said sale deed. So, specific allegation has been levelled against this petitioner regarding impersonating himself as Nishant Kumar, son of vendor.

7. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

8. According, present bail application of the petitioner stands rejected.