High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Lakhmi Alias Lakhmi Chand v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 8508 of 2005  RD-AH 9611 (16 May 2006)
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8508 of 2005
Lakhmi alias Lakhmi Chand Versus State of U.P.
Hon. (Mrs.) Saroj Bala, J.
This is an application for bail moved on behalf of the applicant Lakhmi alias Lakhmi Chand arraigned in case Crime No. 87 of 2005 under sections 218, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 472, 120-B, I.P.C. and section 13 (1)(D) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police station Garh Mukteshwar, district Ghaziabad.
Heard Sri J.S. Sengar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mahendra Pratap, Special Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party and the learned AGA and have perused the record.
The allegations against the applicant are that allotment of L.M.C. land to 159 persons was made by committing forgery and interpolation in L.M.C. resolution dated 6.9.1988 and approval order dated 28.12.1988 of S.D.M. for allotment of land on lease in favour of eight persons. Mutation entries were made on 18.9.1993 by Lekhpal/co-accused Raissudin. The file relating to allotment of land to 159 persons was not previously entered in the allotment register. The applicant is said to have made entry of the said file at serial no. 8 of allotment register and issued parwana on 22.6.1993 in his capacity as Assistant Registrar Kanoongo/Registrar Kanoongo Tahsil Garh Mukteshwar.
The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was posted as Assistant Registrar Kanoongo Garh Mukteshwsar, district Ghaziabad uptill 5.11.1988. The learned counsel argued that applicant was promoted to the post of Registrar Kanoongo and after promotion he was again transferred to Tahsil Garh Mukteshwar and took over charge there on 1.2.1993. The contention of the learned counsel was that the applicant was not posted in Tahsil Garh Mukteshwar during the period January 1989 to December 1992 in which forgery is alleged to have been committed. The learned counsel pointed out that the allotment file does not bear the signatures of the applicant. The learned counsel argued that the Assistant Registrar Kanoongo or Registrar Kanoongo having not been assigned the work of allotment of land, the files relating to the allotment of land on lease were not produced before the applicant. The learned counsel submitted that
no property or assets disproportionate to the known sources of income of the applicant have been found. The contention of the learned counsel was that there is no evidence of receiving of illegal gratification. The learned counsel urged that the Collector having been empowered to cancel the forged allotment of land, no wrongful loss has been caused to the State. The learned counsel argued that no duty has been assigned to the applicant in the matter of allotment of land on lease under Rules 173, 176 and 178 of U.P. Z. A. & L.R. Rules. The learned counsel submitted that the signatures and hand-writing of the applicant having not been proved there is no legal evidence. The learned counsel urged that the disputed hand-writing and signatures having not been sent for comparison and examination to Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert there is no proof of forgery. The learned counsel submitted that mutation parwana was not issued by the applicant. The submission of the learned counsel was that there is no material to support the allegations about the receipt of illegal gratification.
The learned AGA submitted that there is evidence that a sum of Rs.500/- each was received by the applicant and co-accused for allotment of Gaon Sabha land. The learned counsel submitted that the allotment of land is to be made to the persons residing within the Gaon Sabha area whereas the allotment by fabricated and false documents was made in favour of the persons residing out side Gaon Sabha area and having ownership rights in other land. The learned counsel referring to pages no. 59, 69, 70, 76, 129 and 131 of the case diary submitted that preparation of false L.M.C. resolution, approval order of S.D.M. for allotment, mutation entries and their verification was done for wrongful gain. The learned counsel referring to pages no. 134, 136, 137, 139, 143, 148, 149, 153, 154, 156, 159, 160, 163, 165, 166 and 189 of the case diary submitted that the evidence collected thereunder indicates that no meeting was convened by L.M.C. for the allotment of land. The learned counsel referring to pages no. 202, 205, 206, 231, 234 of the case diary urged that illegal gratification was received for the allotment of the land by manufacturing false and fabricated documents. The learned counsel placing reliance on the decisions in Zahira Habibulla H. Shekh Vs. State of Gujrat and others 2004 SCC (Cri) 999, R.S. Nayak Versus A.R. Antuley (1984) 2 SCC 183 and State of M.P. Versus Shri Ram Singh AIR 2000 SC 870, argued that deficiency in investigation is not fatal
to the prosecution case and the Prevention of Corruption Act being a social legislation, the provisions contained therein should be liberally construed and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat its object. The learned counsel making reference to the decisions in the case of State of U.P. through C.B.I. Versus Amar Mani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21 and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Versus Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and another (2004) 7 SCC 528 submitted that looking to the nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence the applicant is not entitled to bail.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments raised on behalf of both the parties.
The Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Versus Amar Mani Tripathi (supra), Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Versus Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and another (supra), Ram Govind Upadhya Versus Sudarshan Singh and others (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Anil Kumar Tulsiyani Versus State of U.P. and another, Appeal (Crl.) 529 of 2006 decided on 5.5.2006 has laid down the considerations and circumstances to be considered while deciding the bail application which are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with ; and (viii) danger , of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.
The applicant and co-accused entered into a criminal conspiracy and manufactured false, forged and fabricated documents namely Land Management Committee resolutions, orders of approval for allotment of land owned by the State and recorded in the revenue records in the name of Gaon Sabha, mutation entries in revenue records, verification of mutation entries and fake entries in the allotment register and parwana for mutation in order to cause wrongful loss of 806.67 hectare land to the State. The applicant in his capacity as Assistant Registrar Kanoongo and Registrar Kanoongo is said to have made entries of allotment of land to 159 persons at serial no. 8 of allotment register and issued mutation parwana on 22.6.1993.
The false documents prepared by the applicant and co-accused in collusion with each other have prejudicially affected the legal rights of the State in the land in question. Obviously, false entries in the allotment register and issuance of mutation parwana were done by the applicant for wrongful gain. The applicant being involved in allotment of land to 159 persons by manufacturing false and fake documents, I do not consider it to be a fit case for bail.
The bail application moved on behalf of the applicant Lakhmi alias Lakhmi Chand is hereby rejected.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.