MANISH GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Alok Ranjan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No.1532 of 2021, under Ss. 177, 182, 191, 192, 193, 196, 200, 207, 209, 463, 464, 468, 471, 120-B, 420, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali Shahar, District- Bulandshahr, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail during the pendency of the trial.

(3.) An application u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was filed by the first informant Mahesh Kumar, in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr on 20/9/2021 alleging that the informant and his brothers are the landlords and are in possession of Jagdish Cinema. The informant and his brothers had decided to rent the said cinema hall to Vipul Mittal and Atul Mittal. On 6/9/2021 at about 08:00 AM, when the informant and his brothers were preparing a rent deed with deed writer Sudhir Gupta at the Jagdish Cinema hall then at about 08:30 AM, the applicant and co-accused persons Chandra Prakash Gupta and Pradeep Kumar along with three unknown persons came there, started hurling abuses at them and are stated to have demanded a ransom of Rs.1.00 crore in lieu of the said rent deed/ any sale-deed. On the same day at about 11:00 AM, when the informant and his brothers reached the office of Registrar then again the said six persons met them and misbehaved with them. The Sub-Registrar showed three applications filed by the applicant and his brothers to stop the registration of the said rent deed. The informant along with the persons accompanied with him perused the said three applications and it was found that the language used in the said applications are similar and the witness in one application is the complainant in another application. Further in the said applications, it was alleged that the Court below has passed an order dtd. 18/9/2002 in Case No.07 of 2008, Mahendra Kumar Vs. Chavli Devi, restraining the informant and his brothers to transfer the alleged property through sale-deed or any other means. The informant apprehended that the applicant and his brothers are trying to rent the said property to someone else. Thereupon, the applicant showed the other documents including the order dtd. 5/4/2011 wherein the informant and his brothers were declared as the sole owners of the said cinema hall and thereafter, the said rent deed was registered by the Registrar in spite of the said applications filed by the applicant and his brothers. It is also alleged that the applicant and his brothers have filed fake and forged documents before the Registrar and have interfered in his official work who is a public servant.