Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 508 (UTT)

Safia Malik v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-07-24

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No. 69 of 2024, under Section 120-B, 417, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Haldwani, District Nainital. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, the Government land in the Company Bagh, Haldwani (“the property”) was sold on multiple occasions by illegal plotting, illegal construction etc. The FIR records that a Writ Petition (M/s) No. 319 of 2024 (“the petition”) was filed by the applicant, wherein she has stated that her father was gifted the property by Nabi Raza Khan in the year 1994, whereas as per the FIR, Nabi Raza Khan had died in the year 1988. It is also recorded that in the petition an affidavit of Gaus Raza Khan dated 31.01.2014 has been filed, which appears to be doubtful. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no case against the applicant; at the most, the applicant may an encroacher; she has not executed a single document for transferring or illegal plotting or illegal construction of the property. It is argued that the land was recorded in the name of Yaseen Khan and after his death, it was given to Nabi Raza Khan and thereafter, he gifted the property to the father of the applicant (it is disputed by learned State counsel). Learned counsel for the applicant would also submit that there is no money trail. The husband of the applicant had some banking transactions with one Babu Raza and, in fact, Babu Raza has to give money to the husband of the applicant as per the account details. 5. Learned State counsel would submit that Nabi Raza has died long back on 03.10.1988, whereas, in the petition, the applicant writes that her father got the property by way of gift deed in the year 1994. Learned State counsel would also submit that with two of their personnel, Babu Raza and Mohd. Zaheer, the applicant has been transferring the property on stamps illegally. She would submit that Mohd. Raza has been transferring money so as to meet the expenses of the family of the applicant, which establishes their connection. 6. Learned State counsel would also submit that with two of their personnel, Babu Raza and Mohd. Zaheer, the applicant has been transferring the property on stamps illegally. She would submit that Mohd. Raza has been transferring money so as to meet the expenses of the family of the applicant, which establishes their connection. 6. Learned State counsel would also submit that in the petition, an affidavit of Gaus Raza Khan dated 31.04.2024 has been filed, which Gaus Raza Khan denied to have executed and the notary has also stated that he has notarized the affidavit, which had already been signed by the deponent. 7. It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial or in any other proceedings. 8. If any forged or false affidavit is filed in the petition, the State may very well agitate that matter in the petition. Even otherwise, according to the FIR that affidavit of Gaus Raza Khan is doubtful. The petition is still pending disposal. 9. In the petition if the applicant has falsely stated that her father was given the property in gift by the Nabi Raza Khan, it will be dealt with in the petition. It per se may not make out any case of forgery. At the most, it may be termed as giving false statement before the Court if at all it is established. 10. Admittedly, the property was not sold or alienated by the applicant. What is being argued is that Babu Raza and Mohd. Zaheer alienated the property. It was so transferred, as per prosecution also, through some stamps or agreements. None of the purchaser has objected to it. If Government land is illegally encroached cannot the Government initiate the proceedings for eviction? If a person who is not the owner of the property transfers the property to some other person, who is cheated, the real owner or the person who purchased such property without title? These and many more questions would find answer during trial. 11. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 12. The bail application is allowed. 13. These and many more questions would find answer during trial. 11. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 12. The bail application is allowed. 13. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.