Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:46138

Court No. - 16

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6768

of 2023

Applicant :- Surendra Bahadur Singh @ Putan Singh

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Pratap Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sultan Hasan Ibrahim

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

1. Heard Sri Dhirendra Pratap Singh, the learned counsel for the

applicant, Sri Arvind Kumar Pandey, the learned A.G.A. for the

State as well as Sri Sultan Hasan Ibrahim, learned counsel for

the informant and perused the record.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the

applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 144 of 2023, under Section

419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C., registered at Police

Station Kotwali Nagar, District Raebareli.

3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of F.I.R.

lodged on 04.03.2023 against (i) Ikram Ulla and (ii) Surendra

Bahadur singh alias Putaan Singh (the applicant), in furtherance

of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., stating that the

informant had purchased a plot of land from co-accused Ikram

Ulla for Rs. 15,00,000/- by means of sale-deed dated

15.05.2021 and he had purchased another plot from the

applicant for a sale consideration of Rs. 7,00,000/- by means of

another sale-deed dated 21.03.2022 but later on it transpired

that the land had been mortgage in a bank and the accused

persons had cheated the informant of Rs. 22,00,000/-.

4. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has

been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely

implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history.

5. It has been further stated in the affidavit that the informant is

a financier and there were monitory transactions between the

parties. It has further been stated on 25.10.2021, the applicant

had executed an agreement to sell the land in question to the

informant, which agreement was duly registered and it is

categorically mentioned in the agreement that the land of the

applicant was mortgaged with the bank.

6. A counter affidavits have been filed by the State as also by

the informant. The informant had denied that he is a financier

and it has been stated in the counter affidavit that the agreement

to sell was executed on an assurance by the applicant that the

sale-deed will be executed after the mortgage is redeemed.

7. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that co-

accused Ikaram Ullah, has already been granted bail by means

of an order dated 18.05.2023 passed by a coordinate bench of

this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6531 of 2023.

8. Per contra, Sri Sultan Hasan Ibrahim, the learned counsel for

the informant has stated that the applicant cannot claims parity

with the aforesaid order as the co-accused has entered into a

settlement with the applicant and has repaid the amount in

dispute.

9. I have gone through the aforesaid order dated 18.05.202, the

submission made on behalf of the informant is that a settlement

has been entered into between the parties but the reason for

grant of bail has been mentioned in Para 7 of the order and

settlement is not a ground for passing of an order.

10. The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of the bail, but

he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

11. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of

the case, what prima facie appears from the material placed

before the court at this stage is that the informant had entered

into a registered agreement to purchase the property wherein it

was categorically disclosed that the property was mortgage. The

informant has thereafter purchased the property without

verifying the redemption of mortgage and there is no averment

in the sale deed in this regard.

12. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and that the other co-

accused has already been granted bail, coupled with the fact

that the applicant has no