MOHAMMAD KHAILD Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application for grant of anticipatory bail has been moved on behalf of the applicants in case crime no. 0150 of 2019, under sections 419, 420, 120-B, 395, 307, 504, 506, 427 IPC, P.S. Phoolpur, District Azamgarh.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the opposite party no.2 has filed an application under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for registration of the FIR against the applicant. The said application was registered as Misc. Case No. 593 of 2019. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh has passed an ex-parte order dated 4.6.2019 directing the police to lodge the FIR and investigate the matter. In compliance of the order dated 4.6.2019, FIR dated 9.6.2019 was lodged against the applicant and several other persons vide case crime no. 0150 of 2019, under sections 419, 420, 120-B, 395, 307, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C., P.S. Phoolpur, District Azamgarh. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. He further submitted that as per allegations made in the FIR, no offence is made out against the applicant.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is only the marginal witness of the sale-deed executed by the Bhumidhar of the land to one Suresh Kumar Jaiswal and others and therefore, the applicant has not committed any forgery and cheating in regard to the execution of that sale-deed. The said criminal case has been instituted against the applicant only with a view to harass him and to create pressure on the Bhumidhar of the land. The entire prosecution case is based on false and fabricated version and no offence as alleged in the FIR is made out against the applicant. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the opposite party no.2 is a practicing advocate in this High Court and his father is a practicing advocate at district court, Azamgarh and therefore, a false and fabricated case has been lodged against the applicant. Applicant had threat from the father of the opposite party no.2, therefore, he could not initiate/filed application for grant of anticipatory bail before the court below. He has lodged a complaint at the concerned police station which is appended as Annexure-10 to the paper book. It is also submitted that since the father of opposite party no.2 is a practicing advocate, therefore, he has filed the instant application directly in this High Court without exhausting the remedy available before the court below.