# Dr. Vinay Kumar Jain v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 21
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-09-20
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. 1518 of 2024
- **Bench:** Karunesh Singh Pawar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-vinay-kumar-jain-v-state-of-u-p-52580
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 420, 425, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B
- As per F.I.R. 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 sq ft -
In the said record, no order number was
written neither there was reference of
order on paper book, name of officer who
has made endorsement was also not on
record neither there was any stamp of
concerned office - The alleged record
appears to be forged - Further allegation
that at page No.2 on 12-16 line whitener
has been used which makes it suspicious -
Applicant contended he was not named in
F.I.R, but in the name of investigation he
has
been
called
several
times
for
interrogation by investigating agency,
therefore, there is an apprehension for
arrest. (Para 1, 3)

Held, civil suit was pending between
parties and dispute was civil in nature,
there was nothing on record to show that
applicant
was
not
cooperating
in
investigation
and
considering
the
22 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
undertaking given by applicant that he
will cooperate in investigation, interim
protection granted earlier was made
absolute in view of dictum of Apex Court
in Sushila Aggarwal (infra). (Para 5)

Application allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

Sushila Aggarwal Vs St. (NCT of Delhi) - 2020
SCC online SC 98

## Text

9 All. Dr. Vinay Kumar Jain Vs. State of U.P.
21
law cannot be allowed to be lonely; a
destitute."

9. A similar view has also been taken
by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh
Yadav and Another v. State of Uttar
Pradesh3.

10. In the present case, it appears that,
on account of a long gap of two months and
nine days between the examination-in-chief
and cross examination, the witness was
won over by the accused and she resiled
from the version as deposed in the
examination-in-chief
which
fully
incriminates the accused.

11. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties,
complicity
of
accused,
severity
of
punishment and also considering the
aforesaid judgements of Supreme Court
and the facts as narrated above by learned
State Law Officer, I do not find it a fit case
to release the applicant on bail.

12.

The
bail
application
is,
accordingly, rejected.

13. However, it is directed that the
aforesaid case pending before the trial court
be decided expeditiously, in view of the
principle laid down in the recent judgements
of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod
Kumar vs. State of Punjab4 and Hussain
and Another vs. Union of India5, if there is
no legal impediment.

14. It is clarified that the observations
made herein are limited to the facts brought
in by the parties pertaining to the disposal
of
bail
application
and
the
said
observations shall have no bearing on the
merits of the case during trial.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 21
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S
438 CR.P.C. No. 1518 of 2024

Dr. Vinay Kumar Jain ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Prashant
Kumar,
Devesh
Srivastava,
Sarvesh Kumar Tiwari, Satish Gulati

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 420, 425, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B
- As per F.I.R. 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 sq ft -
In the said record, no order number was
written neither there was reference of
order on paper book, name of officer who
has made endorsement was also not on
record neither there was any stamp of
concerned office - The alleged record
appears to be forged - Further allegation
that at page No.2 on 12-16 line whitener
has been used which makes it suspicious -
Applicant contended he was not named in
F.I.R, but in the name of investigation he
has
been
called
several
times
for
interrogation by investigating agency,
therefore, there is an apprehension for
arrest. (Para 1, 3)

Held, civil suit was pending between
parties and dispute was civil in nature,
there was nothing on record to show that
applicant
was
not
cooperating
in
investigation
and
considering
the
22 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
undertaking given by applicant that he
will cooperate in investigation, interim
protection granted earlier was made
absolute in view of dictum of Apex Court
in Sushila Aggarwal (infra). (Para 5)

Application allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

Sushila Aggarwal Vs St. (NCT of Delhi) - 2020
SCC online SC 98

(Delivered by Hon'ble 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.
9 All. Dr. Vinay Kumar Jain Vs. State of U.P.
23

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 14.02.2023 and held that
the provisions of Section 16(1)(b) of the act
is clearly applicable in the present case
indicating
vacancy,
accordingly,
the
release application filed by petitioner also
stands allowed.

The Authorities have failed to
comply
the
order,
accordingly,
the
Applicant
filed
Contempt
Application
(Civil) No. 1470 of 2023 before this
Hon'ble Court for non compliance, but
even then the Respondents have not
complied the same as such the charges
were framed against the contemnor i.e.
CMO. Vide order dated 22.09.2023.

Thereafter,
State
Government
filed a Review 1 Application No. 165 of
2023 against the Order Dated 14.02.2023
and the same has been rejected vide order
dated 13.10.2023.

Accordingly,
the
State
Government assailed the Order Dated
14.02.2023 and 13.10.2023 before Hon'ble
Supreme Court by filing SLP (C) /Diary
No. 44267 of 2023, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court dismissed the SLP and
directed the state to hand over the
possession of the property in question till
31.03.2024.

During the pendency of the
aforesaid
proceedings,
the
District
Collector, Barabanki filed another suit
against
the
Petitioner
on
4.05.2023
challenging the free hold deed dated
24.07.2000, wherein the Applicant filed the
Written Statement and the same is pending
for adjudication.

The CMO has handed over the
possession of the premises on 31.03.2024.

Thereafter, on the behest of the
District Administration an FIR bearing
case crime no. 460/2024 dated 25.05.2024
under Section 2 and 3 of the Prevention of
Damage Public Property Act, 1984 has
been lodged against the Applicant.

The Applicant challenged the said
FIR before this Hon'ble Court by filing
Criminal Writ Petition no. 4365 of 2024
before this Hon'ble Court, wherein interim
protection was granted vide order dated
24.06.2024.

Thereafter,
due
to
malafide
intentions the diagnostic center running by
the Applicant has been seized by the district
24 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
administration
without
following
due
process of law. The said proceedings were
challenged by the Petitioner by filing WritC 5623 of 2024 wherein this Hon'ble Court
has been pleased to stay the proceedings
vide order dated 26.06.2024.

During this period, the impugned FIR
was lodged U/s. 420, 425, 468, 467, 471 and
120-B of IPC on 01.11.2023 at PS- Kotwali,
Barabanki. However, the Applicant is not named
in the FIR, but, in the name of investigation he
has been called several times for interrogation
by the investigating agency, and therefore, there
is an apprehension for arrest. Hence this
Anticipatory Bail."

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the
contention of learned counsel for the applicant .

Learned counsel for the applicant
undertakes that applicant will cooperate in the
investigation.

Learned Addl. Government Advocate
prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file
counter affidavit.

List on 20.09.2024.

Considering the above aspect of the
matter, perusal of the record as well as the fact
that civil suit is pending between the parties
before the competent civil court, Barabanki
prima facie dispute appears to be civil in nature
and the applicant is undertaking to cooperate in
the investigation as also the judgment of Apex
Court passed in Sushila Aggarwal and others
versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5
SCC 1, it would be appropriate to grant interim
protection to the applicant under Section 438
Cr.P.C.

Till the next date of listing, it is
provided that in the event of arrest, the
applicant-Dr. Vinay Kumar Jain shall be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal
bond and two sureties of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O.
concerned.

The applicant shall cooperate in the
investigation and he will not influence the
witness. The accused-applicant will remain
present
as
and
when
the
arresting
officer/I.O./S.H.O.
concerned
call(s)
for
investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall
not leave India without previous permission of
the Court.

In case of default, it would be open for
the investigating agency to move application for
vacation of this interim protection. "

4. Learned AGA has submitted that
investigation in the matter is going on, however,
he could not show from the material on record
that the applicant is not cooperating in the
investigation.

5. On due consideration to the fact that
civil suit is pending between the parties and
dispute is civil in nature, there is nothing on
record to show that the applicant is not
cooperating in the investigation; as well
as considering the undertaking given by
the applicant that he will cooperate in
the investigation, the interim protection
granted by this Court vide order dated
29.08.2024 is made absolute in view of
dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila
Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-
2020 SCC online SC 98.

6. In view of the aforesaid, the application
is allowed.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 24
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2737 of 2024

Jaikun Nisha ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party