JUDGMENT : Karunesh Singh Pawar, J. 1. The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime/F.I.R No.1163/2023, under Sections 420, 425, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. This Court while granting interim protection to the applicant vide order dated 29.08.2024 has passed the following order:- "Heard learned counsel the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime/F.I.R No.1163/2023, under Sections 420, 425, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that nazul land registered at page No.89 vide order dated 29.08.1956/11.10.1956 in the name of Kapura Devi to the tune of 66,844 square ft. In the said record, no order number is written neither there is reference of order on the paper book, the name of the officer who has made the endorsement is also not on the record neither there is any stamp of the concerned office. It is alleged that due to this reason the alleged record appears to be forged. It is further alleged that at page No.2 on 12-16 line whitener has been used which further makes it suspicious. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is not named in the F.I.R. He has made following submissions:- "Ram Rajeshwar Bali was the owner of the property Khasra Plot No. 315/1, Obari, Civil Lines bearing Municipal No. B/1049/614/T 364 to 368 also known as B-1365, Mohalla Begum Ganj, P.S. Kotwali, District Barabanki. After the death of Ram Rajeshwar Bali, Ram Dinanath Bali, who was the legal heir, became the owner of the aforesaid property. Kapura Devi had purchased the property from Dinanath Bali on 03.03.1955. After the death of Kapura Devi, her son Nandanlal Jain became the owner of this property by inheritance. In the year 1998, Nandlal Jain transferred his property to Dr. Vinay Kumar Jain through gift deed. From 1998 till now, applicant Vinay Kumar Jain is the sole owner of the said property Khasra No. 315. After the death of Kapura Devi, her son Nandanlal Jain became the owner of this property by inheritance. In the year 1998, Nandlal Jain transferred his property to Dr. Vinay Kumar Jain through gift deed. From 1998 till now, applicant Vinay Kumar Jain is the sole owner of the said property Khasra No. 315. Dr Padma Shukla the then CMO was under tenancy in her individual capacity, but after the transfer of Dr Padma Shukla in the year 1991 the premises would be deemed to be vacated, but the District Administration started to treat the land as CMO Residence. After 1995, CMO Dr. Surendra Kumar had stopped paying rent. Therefore, the Applicant proceedings U/s. 16 of the Act. instituted the The applicant applied to District Magistrate Barabanki on 25.01.99 for free holding of the said Araji Nazul. On 28.08.1999, Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) ordered to deposit Rs. 6,10,619/-in the treasury within 90 days. After the applicant deposited the said amount, a deed of sale was executed in favor of the applicant by Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Barabanki. After the deed of sale by the Additional District Magistrate on 22.07.2000, the applicant was not given possession of the said premises, since it was being used illegally as residence of CMO. Then the petitioner filed an application for release of the said property in terms of section 16 of the UP-Act No. 13 of 1972 on march, 2007 for deemed vacancy. The said Application was rejected by means of order dated 30.03.2011 primarily on the ground that the property in question comes under ownership of State Government and has been in use and occupation of the Chief Medical Officer. The Petitioner filed the Revision No. 01/2011 in the court of Additional Sessions Court No. 01, which was also rejected by the Learned Court. Therefore, the Applicant challenged the Order dated 30.03.2011 and 06.09.2012 by filing WRITA No. 1000081 of 2015 (Dr. Vinay Kumar Jain vs. State of U.P. & Others) before this Hon'ble Court, wherein after exchange of pleadings, this Hon'ble Court allowed the said petition vide order dated 14.02.2023 and held that the provisions of Section 16(1)(b) of the act is clearly applicable in the present case indicating vacancy, accordingly, the release application filed by petitioner also stands allowed. Vinay Kumar Jain vs. State of U.P. & Others) before this Hon'ble Court, wherein after exchange of pleadings, this Hon'ble Court allowed the said petition vide order dated 14.02.2023 and held that the provisions of Section 16(1)(b) of the act is clearly applicable in the present case indicating vacancy, accordingly, the release application filed by petitioner also stands allowed. The Authorities have failed to comply the order, accordingly, the Applicant filed Contempt Application (Civil) No. 1470 of 2023 before this Hon'ble Court for non compliance, but even then the Respondents have not complied the same as such the charges were framed against the contemnor i.e. CMO. Vide order dated 22.09.2023. Thereafter, State Government filed a Review 1 Application No. 165 of 2023 against the Order Dated 14.02.2023 and the same has been rejected vide order dated 13.10.2023. Accordingly, the State Government assailed the Order Dated 14.02.2023 and 13.10.2023 before Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing SLP (C) /Diary No. 44267 of 2023, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP and directed the state to hand over the possession of the property in question till 31.03.2024. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the District Collector, Barabanki filed another suit against the Petitioner on 4.05.2023 challenging the free hold deed dated 24.07.2000, wherein the Applicant filed the Written Statement and the same is pending for adjudication. The CMO has handed over the possession of the premises on 31.03.2024. Thereafter, on the behest of the District Administration an FIR bearing case crime no. 460/2024 dated 25.05.2024 under Section 2 and 3 of the Prevention of Damage Public Property Act, 1984 has been lodged against the Applicant. The Applicant challenged the said FIR before this Hon'ble Court by filing Criminal Writ Petition no. 4365 of 2024 before this Hon'ble Court, wherein interim protection was granted vide order dated 24.06.2024. Thereafter, due to malafide intentions the diagnostic center running by the Applicant has been seized by the district administration without following due process of law. The said proceedings were challenged by the Petitioner by filing Writ-C 5623 of 2024 wherein this Hon'ble Court has been pleased to stay the proceedings vide order dated 26.06.2024. During this period, the impugned FIR was lodged U/s. 420, 425, 468, 467, 471 and 120-B of IPC on 01.11.2023 at PS- Kotwali, Barabanki. The said proceedings were challenged by the Petitioner by filing Writ-C 5623 of 2024 wherein this Hon'ble Court has been pleased to stay the proceedings vide order dated 26.06.2024. During this period, the impugned FIR was lodged U/s. 420, 425, 468, 467, 471 and 120-B of IPC on 01.11.2023 at PS- Kotwali, Barabanki. However, the Applicant is not named in the FIR, but, in the name of investigation he has been called several times for interrogation by the investigating agency, and therefore, there is an apprehension for arrest. Hence this Anticipatory Bail." Learned A.G.A. has opposed the contention of learned counsel for the applicant . Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that applicant will cooperate in the investigation. Learned Addl. Government Advocate prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file counter affidavit. List on 20.09.2024. Considering the above aspect of the matter, perusal of the record as well as the fact that civil suit is pending between the parties before the competent civil court, Barabanki prima facie dispute appears to be civil in nature and the applicant is undertaking to cooperate in the investigation as also the judgment of Apex Court passed in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1 , it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant-Dr. Vinay Kumar Jain shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned. The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection." 4. Learned AGA has submitted that investigation in the matter is going on, however, he could not show from the material on record that the applicant is not cooperating in the investigation. 5. In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection." 4. Learned AGA has submitted that investigation in the matter is going on, however, he could not show from the material on record that the applicant is not cooperating in the investigation. 5. On due consideration to the fact that civil suit is pending between the parties and dispute is civil in nature, there is nothing on record to show that the applicant is not cooperating in the investigation; as well as considering the undertaking given by the applicant that he will cooperate in the investigation, the interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 29.08.2024 is made absolute in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed.