Uma Kant Yadav vs State of U.P.

Shiv Shanker, J.—This first bail application has been moved on behalf of applicant Uma Kant Yadav in Case Crime No. 825 of 2006, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 506, I.P.C., P.S. Shahganj Kotwali, District Jaunpur.

Heard Sri V. P. Srivastava, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of applicant assisted by Sri R. N. Yadav learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. as well as perused the record.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that Smt. Geeta Devi who is the informant as widow of late Raja Ram alias Harish Chandra Dubey and as such he has executed two sale deeds dated 28.4.98 and 2.5.98 in favour of her transferring the entire landed property and on the basis of the same, the name of Smt. Geeta Devi had been mutated in the revenue record. She has no any male issue except two daughters. Unfortunately, on 15.11.1999, the husband of Smt. Geeta Devi late Raja Ram alias Harish Chandra Dubey died. It is further contended that after death of husband of informant late Raja Ram alias Harish Chandra Dubey, she got married with Harish Chandra Yadav as there was close relation in between them in the life time of her husband. Therefore, the informant got executed a marriage certificate on 10.1.2000. After marriage, she was living with the second husband but her second husband created illicit relation with her daughter. Therefore, the informant prohibited but he could not change his nature. Therefore, Smt. Geeta Devi being the owner and bhumidhar of the entire landed property left by Raja Ram alias Harish Chandra Dubey taking a considerable amount of Rs. 14 lakhs executed a sale deed on 21.11.06 in favour of applicant before the Sub-Registrar, Tehsil Shahganj, District Jaunpur. It is further contended that Harish Chandra Yadav got married to Suman Yadav due to bitter relation in between the informant and Harish Chandra Yadav. It is further contended that Harish Chandra Yadav came to know about the execution of sale deed by Smt. Geeta Devi in favour of applicant, illegally in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi filed an Original Civil Suit No. 1261 of 2006 on 7.12.06 by Suman Yadav alleging to her Geeta Devi wife of Harish Chandra. The concerned court had granted an interim order in favour of Plaintiff. But the suit for cancellation of sale deed has not been filed on behalf of informant.

It is further contended that after marriage with Harish Chandra Yadav, the informant started to live as husband and wife and her name was got entered in the family register but subsequently Harish Chandra Yadav got married to Suman Yadav. Her name was also entered into family register of Harish Chandra Yadav. Name of Smt. Geeta Devi as a wife and husband with Harish Chandra Yadav has been recorded in the Voter List of the concerned village. It is further contended that a sale deed was got executed on 17.5.05, in which Smt. Geeta Devi (Present Vendor) has been made a guardian of one Lav minor and his photographs have been pasted at the sale deed. It is further contended that the F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant with intent to harass and malign his image in the society as he is a Member of Parliament. Thereafter, the arrest of applicant was stayed till filing of charge-sheet in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 203 of 2007 by Division Bench of this Court. Now the charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant with the collusion of the complainant and other political persons without going to be investigated the case at its root. Cognizance has also been taken. Written statement in the civil suit has also been filed by the applicant as Defendant. It is further contended that no expert''s report has been filed regarding thumb impression and signature of the informant/vendor and without doing the same, charge-sheet has been filed. The applicant is in jail since 3rd May, 2007 and the trial has also not been concluded so far.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail by filing counter-affidavit.

According to the F.I.R. and counter-affidavit, marriage in between the informant Smt. Geeta Devi and Harish Chandra Yadav was solemnized about 20 years ago. One Raja Ram Dubey had executed sale deed on 19.3.1999 in favour of Smt. Geeta Devi regarding his landed property. Same has been mutated in her name as Smt. Geeta Devi w/o Harish Chandra Yadav. In this regard, it was essential that photo stat copy of sale deed executed by above Raja Ram in favour of informant should have been filed, in which it could be seen the name of her husband but the same has not been produced. It also goes against the applicant. Therefore, this contention has no force that the informant was firstly wife of late Raja Ram who executed sale deed in her favour and thereafter she was married with one Harish Chandra Yadav after his death.

So far as the alleged marriage affidavit/agreement is concerned in between Harish Chandra and informant also appears to be forged document. The date 10.1.2000 has been mentioned below the thumb impression of Harish Chandra while it has been prepared on 26.1.01.

It is worthwhile to mention here that alleged sale deed reveals the name of husband of Smt. Geeta Devi as late Raja Ram alias Harish Chandra Dubey. According to revenue record, the name of Smt. Geeta Devi w/o Harish Chandra Yadav has been mutated in the landed property. In such circumstances, so called Smt. Geeta Devi w/o of late Raja Ram alias Harish Chandra Dubey was not having right to transfer the landed property. Such sale deed also reveals that no any amount of consideration was paid to the vendor before the concerned Tehsildar at the time of its registration. It has been mentioned in it that amount of Rs. 14 lacs has already been paid to the vendor. This also shows that it may be a case of land Mafia who got executed the alleged sale deed without payment of any consideration before the Registrar/Tehsildar by producing another woman in place of informant. No reliance can be placed upon the voter list and Parivar Register. It is a direct case of informant that Harish Chandra Yadav is only the husband of her. Late Raja Ram Dubey alias Harish Chandra was not the husband of informant one lady namely Geeta Devi Brahmin has executed sale deed regarding the landed property of the informant Smt. Geeta Devi wife of Harish Chandra Yadav for getting benefit of the same name. Therefore, vendor has mentioned the name of her husband as late Raja Ram Dubey alias Harish Chandra Dubey. So far as the photo pasted upon sale deed available on record is concerned, no inference can be drawn that the same has been pasted of this photo of informant. It may be manipulated by fixing photographs as the applicant is Member of Parliament of Bahujan Samaj Party and the Registrar/ Tehsildar could not dare to go against him. The applicant is having a long criminal history of 41 cases whereof 38 cases have already been decided in his favour and 4 other cases are pending against him like murders and attempt to murders. This also shows that no one could dare to give evidence against him in earlier 38 cases. If the applicant is released in the present case, in such circumstances, he will tamper with the prosecution witnesses including the informant by his influence being a Member of Parliament.

After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by learned Counsel for both the parties, I do not find any force in arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the applicant. Therefore, the bail application of the present applicant is liable to be rejected.

Consequently the bail application of the present applicant is hereby rejected.