# Iqbal v. State Of U.P - **Citation:** (2016) 7 ILRA 1075 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-07-11 - **Bench:** Harsh Kumar - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/iqbal-v-state-of-u-p-43964 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote Bail - Kidnapping for ransom - Sections 364-A & 120-B IPC - Alleged recovery of kidnapped child and ransom amount - Defence of false implication on account of business rivalry - Plea of prior agreement for sale to explain possession of Rs.7 lakhs - Alleged forged documents - Applicant not coming with clean hands - Bail refused. Where the applicant was accused of kidnapping for ransom and recovery of the kidnapped child along with ransom money was allegedly made from the car in which he was arrested, and the prosecution asserted that the ransom currency notes bore identification marks of the informant, the plea of false implication on account of business rivalry and explanation regarding possession of money based on alleged agreement for sale executed on the same date appeared doubtful. The Court observed that the applicant had not approached the Court with clean hands and had attempted to justify possession of the ransom amount through documents which prima facie appeared fabricated. Considering the gravity of offence under Section 364-A IPC and the totality of facts and circumstances, the case was not found fit for grant of bail. Bail Application Rejected. 1076 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES ## Text 7 All. Iqbal Vs State Of U.P. 1075 file representation/objection within six weeks from date and it is expected that the State Government shall pass the order within next eight weeks thereafter. 23. Subject to the above, the writ petition is allowed. 24. Any orders passed pursuant to the impugned order shall abide by the decision of the State Government in pursuance of this order. 25. No costs. ----------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HARSH KUMAR, J. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.- 26038 Of 2015 Iqbal ...Applicant Versus State Of U.P. ...Opposite Party Counsel for the Applicant: Sunil Singh, Avinash Chandra Srivastav Counsel for the Opposite Party: Govt. Advocate, Vikas Chand Tiwari Headnote: Bail - Kidnapping for ransom - Sections 364-A & 120-B IPC - Alleged recovery of kidnapped child and ransom amount - Defence of false implication on account of business rivalry - Plea of prior agreement for sale to explain possession of Rs.7 lakhs - Alleged forged documents - Applicant not coming with clean hands - Bail refused. Where the applicant was accused of kidnapping for ransom and recovery of the kidnapped child along with ransom money was allegedly made from the car in which he was arrested, and the prosecution asserted that the ransom currency notes bore identification marks of the informant, the plea of false implication on account of business rivalry and explanation regarding possession of money based on alleged agreement for sale executed on the same date appeared doubtful. The Court observed that the applicant had not approached the Court with clean hands and had attempted to justify possession of the ransom amount through documents which prima facie appeared fabricated. Considering the gravity of offence under Section 364-A IPC and the totality of facts and circumstances, the case was not found fit for grant of bail. Bail Application Rejected. 1076 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (Delivered by Hon'ble Harsh Kumar, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the first informant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is not named in F.I.R. and has been falsely implicated on account of business rivalry; that after kidnapping of Adnan son of first informant Abdul Gafoor, a demand for ransom of Rs.15 lacs is alleged to have been made from mobile no.9259595380, which does not belong to applicant; that it is wrong to say that the payment of Rs.7 lacs towards ransom money was made and the kidnapped boy was recovered from the custody of applicant and 3 others; that the recovery of money, allegedly paid as ransom money is alleged to have been made from the dicky of car from which the applicant and three others were arrested as well as kidnapped boy was recovered; that the real fact is that the first informant runs a confectionery shop and the applicant's joint family also runs a confectionery shop (registration of which in the name of Ashraf real uncle of applicant) at a distance about 1 km from the confectionery shop of the first informant; that there is cut throat competition in the business of confectionery shop between the first informant and the applicant and due to above business rivalry, the applicant has been falsely implicated; that the recovery of Rs.7 lacs has been falsely planted of which there is no independent witness; that in fact the above sum of Rs.7 lacs has been taken from the house of applicant, which was kept at his home on account of transaction of sale between his uncles Sri Akram and Aslam; that since applicant's uncle Akram was going to Dubai and was in need of money so he agreed to sell his share in the property, and another uncle Aslam agreed to purchase his share in the property for a sum of Rs.7 lacs, paid entire sale consideration in advance and executed an agreement for sale in favour of Aslam on 10.5.2015 through Notary Public, copy of which is filed at Annexure No.5 to the application; that the above agreement was followed by a sale deed dated 7.9.2015, copy filed at Annexure No.6 to the supplementary affidavit dated 21.11.2015; that the above money of applicant's uncle Aslam was kept at home of the applicant, who lives with his uncles in joint family and the same money has been taken by the police and has been falsely shown to have been recovered from the dicky of car as amount which was paid in ransom; that the entire story of recovery of kidnapped boy as well as recovery of ransom money allegedly paid by the first informant, is wrong and concocted; that it is wrong to say that the money recovered was the same money, which was allegedly paid by first informant to the kidnappers; that the payment of ransom money is alleged to have been made at Mussoorie bridge on 10.5.2015 at 00.23 a.m. and the recovery of kidnapped boy has also been made, the same day at 2:30 p.m., after a period about 14 hours from the same place; that the mobile by which the demand of ransom money was made has been recovered from the possession of co-accused Imran; that the applicant is a student of BCA and has no criminal history;that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail; that the applicant is in custody since 10.5.2015. 7 All. Iqbal Vs State Of U.P. 1077 3. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that it is absolutely wrong to say that the applicant has been falsely implicated due to business rivalary of first informant with the applicant's uncle; that it is not disputed that first informant runs a very good confectionery shop and the uncle of applicant also runs the confectionery shop at a long distance, but the first informant believes in healthy competition in business with better quality of confectionery items; that the contention of false implication of applicant due to alleged business rivalry is absolutely wrong and baseless; that had there been any reason for false implication, Mohd. Ashraf, who runs the shop or the applicant could have been named in F.I.R. itself; that it is not disputed that the first informant runs business of confectionery shop and the uncle of applicant also runs a confectionery shop, but despite the healthy business competition, there can be no reason for false implication of the nephew of owner of other confectionery shop leaving the alleged main competitor; that it is clear from the papers filed by the applicant himself that the agreement for sale dated 10.5.2015 allegedly executed before the notary advocate at Civil Court, Ghaziabad, has been forged and fabricated for the purposes of obtaining bail by justifying the concocted story that the recovered money to be belonging to the applicant's uncle Aslam; that it is noteworthy that the above agreement is alleged to have been executed on 10.5.2015 (time not clear) itself, the same day on which the recovery of kidnapped child and money has been made during noon; that the police or first informant could not have prior knowledge of the alleged agreement likely to be executed on payment of Rs.7 lacs, the entire sale consideration within the family members; that the copy of sale deed filed as Annexure No.6 to the supplementary affidavit shows that in the sale deed dated 7.9.2015, the entire amount of consideration is mentioned to have been paid through various cheques detailed at page 13 of the sale deed at page 47 of the supplementary affidavit; that for ascertaining safe return of his son the first informant had to pay ransom money and had put his signatures on top and bottom currency notes of all the bundles of currency notes; that thereafter the first informant had moved an application to the station incharge of police station, that the ransom money of Rs.7 lacs has been paid to the kidnappers at Mussoorie bridge, after mentioning his name Gafoor on top and bottom of every bundle of currency notes and the kidnappers have assured him of returning his son; that the money recovered from kidnappers has been found bearing name of applicant at the top and bottom of each bundle of currency notes; that the applicant has not come with clean hands and has made an attempt to play fraud on the Court and to obtain bail with the help of forged and fabricated papers; that the applicant if released on bail, shall either abscond or tamper with prosecution evidence; that it is wrong to say that applicant is running a confectionery shop with his uncle and his plea of running the confectionery shop is self contradictory to his plea of his being a BCA student. 4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, it appears that applicant has not come with clean hands and without 1078 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES commenting on the merits of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail. The bail application of applicant Iqbal in case crime no.378 of 2015, under sections 364-A and 120B IPC, PS. Mussoorie, District Ghaziabad, is rejected accordingly. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA), J. Writ B No.- 26245 Of 2016 Amrawati ...Petitioner Versus D.D.C. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for Petitioner: Arvind Srivastava, Mahesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondents: C.S.C., Arvind Kumar Kushwaha, Gajendra Pratap U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Sections 5(2), 9, 9-A(2), 48; U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951) - Sections 20(b), 20(b)(ii), 229-B; U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 - Sections 28, 33, 35, 39, 40, 40-A, 44, 54, 54(8)(b), 57; U.P. Land Record Manual - Paragraph 87, Column 5 and Column 6 of Khasra; U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 - Appendix III, Entry 39-B; U.P. Land Laws Amendment Act, 1961 (U.P. Act No. X of 1961); U.P. Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1954 (U.P. Act No. 20 of 1954). 1. U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 20(b)(ii) - 'Recorded Occupant' - Technical Significance - Entry Must be Made in Column 6 of Khasra - Entry in Remarks Column of Khasra 1359 F Insufficient - No Sirdari Right Accrues. The phrase 'recorded as occupant' in Section 20(b)(ii) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 carries a technical significance. As authoritatively determined by a Full Bench of five Judges in Basdeo v. Board of Revenue, U.P., AIR 1974 All 337 (FB), approved by the Supreme Court in Chandrika Prasad v. Pullo, (2000) 4 SCC 227, before any entry in the khasra or khatauni can be treated as a record of an 'occupant', two conditions must be fulfilled: (i) the entry must be established to have been made in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 and the U.P. Land Record Manual governing the making of occupancy entries; and (ii) the entry must be genuine and not fictitious. Under the U.P. Land Record Manual, the relevant entry for recording the name of an occupant must appear in Column 6 of the khasra, which is the column prescribed for recording sub-tenants or occupiers. An entry made merely in the remark column (Column 5) of the khasra, recording the name of a person as a cultivator, does not constitute a record of an 'occupant' for the purposes of Section 20(b) of the Act. In the present case, the name of Ram Surat appeared only in the remark column of Khasra 1359 F and not in Column 6; further, no evidence was adduced to show that Ram Surat was recorded as occupant in Khasra 1356 F. Held: Ram Surat cannot be treated as a 'recorded occupant' under Section 20(b) and no sirdari right accrued in his favour on the basis of Khasra 1359 F alone.