DEVENDRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Archana Tyagi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated; that the applicant has not committed any cheating or fraud; that the property in dispute is alleged to be belonging to Hanif and Akhtar, who sold it in the year 1986 to various persons, and the vendees again sold it after carving out 57 plots in one Shakti Nagar Colony; that the first informant claims to have purchased plot nos.42 & 43 out of above plots; that as per averments made in F.I.R., one Smt. Banti Devi had also purchased plot nos.7, 8, 9 & 10 out of the above 57 plots; that Smt. Banti Devi executed a power of attorney on 30.7.2009 in favour of applicant and on the basis of power of attorney, the applicant executed an agreement for sale on 18.8.2009 in favour of co-accused Suleman and others and, thereafter, executed two sale deeds on 9.9.2011 and 26.10.2012 in favour of co-accused persons Smt. Rukhsana, Sri Rakesh and Sri Rizwan etc.; that it is alleged that Smt. Banti Devi had died on 9.8.2003 and the land purchased by her had been sold out by her legal heirs and her power of attorney has been forged by applicant after her death by impersonating one Smt. Kaushal Devi wife of Shiv Kumar as Smt. Banti Devi; that it is wrong to say that applicant has obtained power of attorney of Smt. Banti Devi by impersonating some other lady in her place, after death of Smt. Banti Devi; that the first informant has no concern with the property allegedly sold by the applicant through two sale deeds or agreed to sell through agreement for sale dated 18.8.2009; that it is wrong to say that in above deeds wrong boundaries similar to that of plots of first informant have been given with malafide intention to usurp his property; that the above agreement for sale dated 18.8.2009 has been cancelled vide registered deed of cancellaton dated 10.3.2014, copy of which has been filed as Annexure No.R.A.1; that it is wrong to say that applicant and co-accused persons ever made any attempt to sell or usurp the land of first informant by giving incorrect boundaries in the sale deeds or agreement for sale; that the vendees under the two sale deeds executed by applicant have not raised any objection to the validity of sale deeds; that there can be no apprehension to the first informant or danger to the property allegedly purchased by him through court in respect of plot nos.42 & 43; that no civil suit for injunction or any other relief for cancellation of sale deeds executed by applicant is alleged to have been filed by the first informant; that the allegations about the incident dated 2.6.2014 are wrong and concocted; that the applicant has no criminal history except case crime no.459 of 2011, in which he is on bail as per order at Annexure No.5; that applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail; that the applicant is in custody since 20.3.2015.

(3.) Learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that the applicant and his associates are the known land mafias and in order to usurp the property of others use to prepare forged and fictitious documents; that applicant is habitual of executing sale deeds of property of others and raise huge funds by such transactions, causing loss and harassment to the real owners; that annexure C.A.-1 shows that Smt. Banti Devi was wife of Sri Jai Ram Sachdeva had died on 9.8.2003 at Saharanpur; that the real fact is that Smt. Banti Devi wife of Jai Ram died on 9.8.2003 and the plot nos.7, 8, 9, 10 in Shakti Nagar Colony purchased by her from Rakesh and others inherited by her sons Sant Kumar and Santnam Das, who sold the above property inherited by them on 17.7.2007; that after death of Smt. Banti Devi, her name over the plots in questions was not deleted from the revenue records and the names of her sons or the vendees from her sons could not be entered or mutated in the revenue records; that taking undue advantage of this situation, the applicant showing Smt. Banti Devi as alive by impersonating Smt. Kaushal Devi wife of Shiv Kumar as Smt. Banti Devi wife of Shiv Kumar (not Jai Ram Sachdeva) obtained a registered power of attorney in his favour out of Uttar Pradesh, at Jalandhar in State of Punjab while she was resident of Saharanpur, and on the strength of above forged and fictitious power of attorney, is making transactions of sale and agreement for sale in favour of innocent persons and raising huge funds with a malafide intention to usurp the property/plots purchased by applicant and others, from Suraj Prakash, Vijay Kumar, Sunil Kumar and Rakesh, who had purchased the land from Hanif and Akhtar and had sold the land after carving out 57 plots in the name of Shakti Nagar Colony to different persons; that out of above plot nos.42 & 43 were purchased by Surjit Singh through sale deed dated 11.12.1989; that Surjit Singh agreed to sell above plot nos. 42 & 43 in favour of first informant by registered agreement for sale dated 23.3.1990 and on his death, the first informant filed civil suit no.120 of 1993 for specific performance of contract, against heirs of Surjit Singh which was decreed and in execution of decree passed in civil suit no.120 of 1993, a registered sale deed was executed by Court on behalf of judgment debtor in favour of first informant on 1.8.2007; that the applicant has given wrong description and boundaries of the property sold or agreed to be sold by him, similar to that of plot of first informant with malafide intention to usurp the same; that the cancellation of deed of agreement for sale dated 18.8.2009, has been executed subsequently on 10.3.2014; that the cancellation of agreement for sale dated 18.8.2009 on 10.3.2014 has been made on the ground that vendees were not willing to purchase, does not make any difference; that the applicant has still not got the deed of power of attorney cancelled as yet while the power of attorney having been obtained by impersonation after death of earlier owner Smt. Banti Devi is wrong, illegal and inadmissible in evidence and does not create any rights in favour of applicant; that moreover Smt. Banti Devi had no relationship or concern with applicant and there could have been no reason or occasion for her to execute power of attorney in favour of a stranger, even in her life time; that the applicant if released on bail shall continue to involve in similar type of offences and will misuse the liberty of bail; that the applicant is a main culprit and main beneficiary and is not entitled for bail