# Devendra Singh v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2007) 3 ILRA 738
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2007-10-09
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21192 of 2007
- **Bench:** Ravindra Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/devendra-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-41134
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 439Bail Application-offence under Section
13 (2) rule 13 (1) (D) of Prevention of
Corruption
Act
120-B,
167,
420,
511,468,471 IPC-applicant one of the coaccused-got recorded his name other the
revenue record on the basis of forged
lease deed-most of the lease holders
belongs to another village-a big land
seam worth of more than Rs.600 Crorsforgery committed in malkan registershaking
the
confidence
of
common
people-considering
the
gravity
of
offence-not entitled for bail-Rejected.

Held: Para 7

Considering the facts, circumstances of
the case, submissions made by learned
counsel
for
the
applicant,
learned
counsel for C.B.I. and in view of the
above discussions it appears that the
gravity of the offence is too much, it is a
big land scam in which the C.B.I. has
collected
the
material
against
the
applicant to show his involvement and
without expressing any opinion on the
merits of t he case, the applicant is not
3 All] Devendra Singh V. State of U.P. and another
739
entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is
refused.

## Text

738 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
perused case diary for which he was
under obligation to do so, whereas the
protest petition has been treated as a
complaint straightway, it is not proper.
The learned Magistrate has committed a
manifest error by adopting such a
procedure, the learned Magistrate has
again committed the manifest error in
passing the impugned order without
recording the statement of the witnesses
under section 202 Cr.P.C. The prescribed
procedure for taking the cognizance in a
complaint case has not been followed.
The impugned order dated 26.6.2007 is
illegal and is liable to be set aside. The
impugned order is set aside on a technical
ground,
therefore,
it
is
necessarily
required to remit the matter to the court of
learned Magistrate concerned to pass a
fresh order after perusing the case diary in
accordance with provisions of law.

5. In view of the above discussion,
the impugned order dated 26.6.2007
passed by learned A.C.J.M. Bhadohi in
Criminal case F.R. No. 171 of 2007 in
case crime No. 46 of 2005, P.S.
Suriyawan, District Sant Ravidas Nagar
(Bhadohi) is set aside. The learned
Magistrate concerned shall pass a fresh
order in accordance with the provisions of
law.

6.

With
this
direction,
this
application is finally disposed of.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.10.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAVINDRA SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21192
of 2007

Devendra Singh

...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & another ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Satish Trivedi
Sri Santosh Tripathi
Sri Manoj Tiwari

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Sri G.S. Hajela
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 439Bail Application-offence under Section
13 (2) rule 13 (1) (D) of Prevention of
Corruption
Act
120-B,
167,
420,
511,468,471 IPC-applicant one of the coaccused-got recorded his name other the
revenue record on the basis of forged
lease deed-most of the lease holders
belongs to another village-a big land
seam worth of more than Rs.600 Crorsforgery committed in malkan registershaking
the
confidence
of
common
people-considering
the
gravity
of
offence-not entitled for bail-Rejected.

Held: Para 7

Considering the facts, circumstances of
the case, submissions made by learned
counsel
for
the
applicant,
learned
counsel for C.B.I. and in view of the
above discussions it appears that the
gravity of the offence is too much, it is a
big land scam in which the C.B.I. has
collected
the
material
against
the
applicant to show his involvement and
without expressing any opinion on the
merits of t he case, the applicant is not
3 All] Devendra Singh V. State of U.P. and another
739
entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is
refused.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.)

1. This application has been filed by
the applicant Devendra Singh with a.
prayer that he may be released on bail in
case crime No.1-A of 2007 RC No.
0072005 AOO 19th 2005 under sections
120-B, 167,420, 511,468,471 IPC and U/s
13(2) r/w 13(1)(D) of the Prevention of
the
Corruption
Act,
P.S.,
C.B.I.
Dehradun.

2. The brief facts of the present case
are that the F.I.R. of this case has been
lodged by Sri Girivar Singh, Lekhpal of
Kasana, Tahsi1 and district Gautam Budh
Nagar on 27.2.2005 alleging therein that
the village Kasana is a notified village of
Greater Noida, a major part of land has
been acquired by Greater Noida but some
of the land of Gaon Sabha and lease
holders has been illegally acquired by coaccused Moti Lal Goel and others on the
basis of 89 forged lease deeds by
committing a forgery in the register of the
Malkan, in the Khataunies No. 1405F to
1410F with the connivance of revenue
officers/ officials and the land has been
mutated in their names in the revenue
records. The total land illegally acquired
by the applicant and other co-accused
persons is having the area of about 100
hectares equal to 400 Vighas, it is more
than 10 lacs Sq. meters, having the
valuation
of
Rs.600/-
corers.
The
applicant is one of the accused whose
name has also been entered into the
revenue record on the basis of the forged
lease deed. His name has been recorded in
Khasra No. 1841 having the area of 1:265
Hectare.
Subsequently
the
Addl.
Commissioner, Meerut came to the
conclusion that all the 89 lease deeds
were forged it was held by learned Addl.
Commissioner, Meerut in his order dated
4.4.2001. In pursuance of the order dated
4.4.2001 all the forged lease deeds were
cancelled. It has also been revealed that
most of the lease holders including the
applicant, Moti. Lal Goel and others were
not resident of village Kasana. By playing
the fraud and committing a forgery they
have shown themselves to be resident of
Kasana by preparing the lease deeds got
entered in to the revenue records by
committing forgery with the Malkan
register and Khataunies No. 1405F to
1410 F. It is a big land scam, which has
been committed in pre planned manner by
hatching a conspiracy in a fraudulent
manner by committing the forgery even in
the revenue records. The matter was
investigated by the civil police and
submitted the charge sheet dated 7.6.2005
only against nine persons namely Moti
Lal Goel, Rekesh Goel, Mahavir Prasad,
Ajit Gupta, Nitin, Jitendra, Firey, Charan
Singh and Ajaj Husain but in the present
case the certain lease holders named as
accused in case crime No. 57 of 2005
approached this court and challenged the
F.I.R. dated 27.2.2005 by way of filing
Criminal Misc. Writ petition No. 3783 of
2005 which has been finally decided
along with some other writ petitions vide
order dated 27.5.2005 whereby the
direction was issued that the matter be got
investigated by C.B.I. In pursuance of the
order dated 27.5.2005 passed by Division
Bench of this court a fresh F.I.R. was
registered with C.B.I. (SPE), Dehradun as
F.I.R. No. R.C. 007/05, A-0019 on
15.7.2005.
After
completing
the
investigation the C.B.I. has submitted the
charge sheet against the applicant and
other co-accused persons. The applicant
applied for' bail before learned Special
740 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
Judge (C.B.I.) (Prevention of Corruption
Act), U.P. East, Ghaziabad who rejected
the same on 11.7.2007.

3. Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, Senior
Counsel assisted by Sri Santosh Tripathi
and Sri Manoj Tiwari, learned counsel for
the applicant and Sri G.S. Hajela, learned
counsel for C.B.I.

4. It is contended by learned counsel
for the applicant that in the pr sent case no
specific allegation of committing the
fraud or forgery has been made against
the applicant in the F.I.R. dated 27
.2.2005, it has been made against the coaccused Moti Lal Goel. It has been
specifically alleged that co-accused Moti
Lal Goel prepared the forged lease deeds
in the name of his mother, brother,
Bhabhi, sister, family members and close
associates with him, on the basis of forged
lease deeds a forgery has been committed
in the register of Malkan and Khatauni
1405F to 1410F in which the names of
forged lease holders were entered in
connivance with the officials of revenue
department. The applicant was having no
knowledge that any forgery has been
committed in his name by preparing a
forged lease deeds and by playing a fraud
his name was entered into the revenue
record. The applicant has not claimed his
title/ownership or the possession over the
land which was entered into the revenue
records in his name, even the applicant
has not used to gain something on the
basis of such forged entries recorded in
the revenue record. The matter was
investigated by the civil police and the
charge sheet was submitted only against
nine persons including tile Moti Lal Goel
and others. The I.O. has failed to collect
any evidence to prove the involvement
and participation of the applicant in the
alleged forgery. But in pursuance of order
dated 27.5.2005 passed by Division
Bench of this courts even after the
submission of the charge sheet by the
civil police, the matter was transferred to
C.B.I. But the C.B.I. has submitted the
charge sheet against the applicant also. It
is contended that the C.B.I. has not sought
the permission from the court concerned
for further investigation under section
173(8) Cr.P.C. In the present case two
F.I.Rs. have been registered against the
same cause of action. The second F.I.R.
registered by C.B.I. is not permissible
under the law. C.B.I. has recorded the
statement
of
the
witnesses
namely
Dheeraj Singh, Om Prakash, Khushi Ram
and Har Saran Sharma in which the name
of the applicant did not figure. The
statement of Naib Tahsildar namely
Sanjay Kumar has also been recorded on
18.8.2005 and the second statement has
been recorded on 31.8.2005. In the
statement of the Naib tahsildar also, there
is nothing against the applicant. But the
name of the applicant came in the light in
the statement of Mr. D.C. Saxena,
Advocate. The applicant is not acquainted
with Sri D.C. Saxena, Advocate, he has
never been engaged by the applicant to
plead to his case in revenue court, even
Sri D.C. Saxena, Advocate is not in a
position to identify the applicant. There is
no expert opinion against the applicant to
show his involvement also. The applicant
did not play any role in the land scam
done by co-accused Moti Lal Goel. The
applicant had also left the employment of
Moti Lal Goel many years prior the
alleged F.I.R. and the applicant has
himself lodged the F.I.R. in respect of the
same forgery committed by Sri Moti Lal
Goel, on 27.2.2005. The F.I.R. was
lodged in pursuance of the order passed
under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. passed by
3 All] Devendra Singh V. State of U.P. and another
741
the learned Magistrate concerned. The
F.I.R. was registered under sections 420,
467, 468, 471 IPC in case crime No. 261
of 2005 against Moti Lal Goel at P.S.
Kasana in which the charge sheet has
been submitted against the co-accused
Moti Lal Goel on which the cognizance
has been taken by learned Magistrate
concerned on 5.6.2006, it's case is
pending in the court of learned IA.C.J.M., Ghaziabad vide criminal case
No. 3724 of 2006 and the applicant was
witness against Lajja Ram, the father of
the co-accused Moti Lal Goel in case no.
169 of 2005 under sections 420; 466, 467,
468, 469,472, 120-B IPC and 13(1)(D)
read with 13(2) and 7/12 Anti Corruption
Act, in which the charge sheet has been
submitted. In such circumstances, there is
no possibility to enter into the conspiracy
hatched by the co-accused Moti Lal Goel,
the name of the applicant has been
deliberately mentioned in the Malkan
register by the Moti Lal Goel due to
ulterior motive. The prosecution of the
applicant in the present case on the basis
of the F.IR. lodged by the C.B.I. is abuse
of the process of law/court. The applicant
is having no criminal antecedent and no
forged document has been used as
genuine, applicant is innocent, he may be
released on bail.

5. In reply of the above contention,
it is submitted by learned counsel for the
C.B.I. that applicant is a member of the
racket headed by co-accused Moti Lal
Goel and by way of playing fraud and
committing the forgery the name of the
applicant has been entered into the
register of Malkan and Khatauni and by
way of committing the forgery in
connivance with the officials of the
revenue department the applicant and
other co-accused persons acquired the
huge land having the area of 100 hectares,
having the valuation of Rs.600/- corors. It
is a case in which the applicant and other
co-accused persons have made the forged
entries, in connivance with the officials of
revenue
department
to
show
the
ownership/ title over the land of Gaon
Sabha. The entries have been made on the
basis of forge proposals of the Gaon
Sabha for allotting the land to the
applicant and other co-accused persons on
the lease. The applicant is one of the main
beneficiary and applicant was doing
pairavy and claimed his ownership over
the land which was entered in his name in
the revenue records, he had engaged Sri
D.C. Saxena, Advocate and he has handed
over his vakalatnama. The vakalatnama
was bearing the signatures of the
applicant, the same was sent for the
opinion to the hand writing expert,
according to the hand writing expert the
vakalatnama was signed by the applicant.
It is a case in which the land having the
valuation of Rs.600/- crores is involved,
revenue officials are also involved in the
same scam because on the basis of the
forged entries the mutation of the land
was done in the name of the applicant and
other co-accused persons. After lodging
the F.I.R., ignoring the documentary
evidence available against the applicant
the charge sheet was submitted by the
civil police only against nine persons
including the Moti Lal Goel and others,
though the investigation was kept pending
against the applicant and other co-accused
persons but considering the gravity of the
offence the Division Bench of this court
handed over the investigation to C.B.I. On
27.5.2007, in pursuance of the order dated
27.5.2005, the F.I.R. was registered by
C.B.I, there is no need of getting the
permission for further investigation from
the court concerned under section 173(8)
742 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
Cr.P.C. because this direction was given
by Division Bench of the High Court and
there is no illegality in the further
investigation done by C.B.I. It has
admitted by applicant himself that he was
in the employment of the co-accused Moti
Lal Goel but prior lodging the F.IR. he
had left his employment and lodged the
F.I.R. against the co-accused Moti Lal
Goel but the F.I.R. lodged by the
applicant against Moti Lal Goel was on
legal advice to save the skin from the
offence committed by the applicant
because the F.I.R. was lodged by the
applicant against co-accused Moti Lal
Goel after submission of the charge sheet
by the civil police against Moti Lal Goel
and eight other co-accused persons. It was
submitted on 26.6.2005, thereafter the
Division
Bench
of
this
court
has
transferred
the
matter
for
further
investigation to C.B.I. on 27.5.2007. For
the purpose of creating a defence the
applicant has lodged the F.I.R. against
Moti Lal Goel on 15.7.2.005. The
applicant has lodged the F.I.R. against
Moti Lal Goel on 26.6.2005 i.e. after the
submission of the charge sheet by the
civil police against Moti Lal Goel and
others and it has no relevancy that
subsequently the applicant became against
Lajja Ram, the father of co-accused Moti
Lal Goel because both developments have
taken place after commission of the
alleged
offence
under
the
changed
circumstances. The F.I.R. was lodged by
the applicant against Moti Lal Goel and
he became witness against his father in
another case. The applicant is also a
gainer; in his name 1.264 hectares land
has been entered into revenue records
vide Khasra No. 1841. The applicant was
resident of village Kasana, legally he is
not entitle to have any patta of the land
belonging to village Kasana because such
patta can be given only to the holders of
the Gaon Sabha. The hand writing expert
has also given the positive opinion. It is
the hand writing under which applicant
claimed over the disputed land on behalf
of 89 patta holders. There is sufficient
evidence to show that the applicant is
actively involved in the commission of
the alleged offence, which is of grave in
nature.
In
such
circumstances
the
applicant may not be released on bail.

6. From the perusal of the record it
appears that it is a big land scam because
about 100 hectares of land has been
illegally acquired having the valuation of
more than Rs.600/- crores on the basis of
committing forgery in register Malkan
and Khatauni No. 1405 to 1410F in
connivance with officials of revenue
department. In the present case the forged
lease deed were also prepared whereas the
applicant was not entitled to have any
land of village: Kasana on Patta (lease)
because he was not resident of Gaon
Sabha, Kasana. The lease of Gaon Sabha
can be allotted only to resident of Gaon
Sabha. It is also surprising that on the
basis of forged entries made in the
revenue records the land was mutated in
the name of the applicant and other coaccused persons. It reflects that revenue
officials who passed such orders were
also involved in the commission of the
alleged offence. It is a very serious matter
in which the forgery has been committed
with register Malkan. It is such important
register on which the title/ownership of
land is decided but forgery has been
made, in such a important register which
shows that the racket involved was having
high stakes, in such a big land scam the
involvement
of
the
many
persons
including the department concerned is not
ruled out. The present case is a big land
3 All] Ranjana Pandey V. Union of India and others
743
scam, it has shaken the roots of the
revenue department, it has shaken the
confidence of a common man. It has
attacked on a system. In such cases before
passing any order it has to be considered
that the confidence of a common man
may not be eroded.

7.

Considering
the
facts,
circumstances of the case, submissions
made by learned counsel for the applicant,
learned counsel for C.B.I. and in view of
the above discussions it appears that the
gravity of the offence is too much, it is a
big land scam in which the C.B.I. has
collected
the
material
against
the
applicant to show his involvement and
without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, the applicant is not
entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is
refused.

8. Accordingly this application is
rejected.

Application Rejected.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.08.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21717 of 2007

Ranjana Pandey

...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anil Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.B.L. Gaur
Sri Vikash Budhwar
Sri Ram Gopal Tripathi
Addl. Solicitor General of India

National Council for Teachers Education
(Standards
Norms
&
Procedure)
Regulation
2005-Regulation3.201
readwith Policy framed by Allahabad
University for Admission B.Ed. Course
2006-07-clause 1.1.1 and 2.2-university
fixed minimum eligibility marks 40% in
each paper to appear in entrance Textwhile
NCTE
provides
50%
marks
whether
arbitrary,
excessive
or
in
violation of Regulation 3.2.1? -held-'No'
not in derogation-reasons explained.

Held: Para 19

In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of
the opinion that the policy adopted by
the University in fixing a minimum
eligibility criteria of obtaining 40%
marks in each paper, is not in derogation
of clause 3.2.1 of the NCTE Regulations.
In fact, the policy framed by the
University, is in accordance with clause
3.3 of the NCTE Regulations.
Case law discussed:
1995 (4) SCC-104, 2004 (5) E.S.C.-147, AIR
1998 SC-795, 2005 (3) ESC-1594, 2001 (3)
ESC-1257, 1986 Suppl. SCC-543, AIR 2003 SC235, 1998 (6) SCC-720, 2004 (1) ESC-19,
2003 (3) ESC-1478, 1995 (4) SCC-104, 2005
(6) AWC-6199

(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.)

1. Admissions in B.Ed. course is
governed by the regulations framed by
National Council for Teacher Education
(Standards
Norms
and
Procedures)
Regulations 2005 (hereinafter referred to
as the 'NCTE'). These Regulations were
amended
by
a
notification
dated
20.7.2006
wherein
the
norms
and
standards were modified. Previously the
minimum eligibility for admission was
45% marks in a Bachelor's degree or in a
Master's Degree, but after the amendment,
vide notification dated 20.7.2006, the
eligibility criteria was increased from
45% to 50%. The controversy involved in