RAVINDRA Singh, J. - (1.) This application has been filed by the applicant Devendra Singh with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 1-A of 2007 RC No. 0072005 AOO 19th 2005 under sections 120-B, 167, 420, 511, 468 and 471 IPC and under section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (D) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, P. S. , C. B. I. Dehradun.
(2.) THE brief facts of the present case are that the F. I. R. of this case has been lodged by Sri Girivar Singh, Lekhpal of Kasana, Tahsil and district Gautam Budh Nagar on 27. 2. 2005 alleging therein that the village Kasana is a notified village of Greater NOIDA, a major part of land has been acquired by Greater NOIDA, but some of the land of Gaon Sabha and lease holders has been illegally acquired by co-accused Moti Lal Goel and others on the basis of 89 forged lease deeds by committing a forgery in the register of the Malkan, in the Khataunies No. 1405-F to 1410-F with the connivance of revenue officers/officials and the land has been mutated in their names in the revenue records. The total land illegally acquired by the applicant and other co-accused persons is having the area of about 100 hectares equal to 400 Vighas, it is more than 10 lacs Sq. meters, having the valuation of Rs. 600/-corers. The applicant is one of the accused whose name has also been entered into the revenue record on the basis of the forged lease deed. His name has been recorded in Khasra No. 1841 having the area of 1. 265 Hectare. Subsequently the Addl. Commissioner, Meerut came to the conclusion that all the 89 lease deeds were forged it was held by learned Addl. Commissioner, Meerut in his order dated 4. 4. 2001. In pursuance of the order dated 4. 4. 2001 all the forged lease deeds were cancelled. It has also been revealed that most of the lease holders including the applicant, Moti Lal Goel and others were not resident of village Kasana. By playing the fraud and committing a forgery they have shown themselves to be resident of Kasana by preparing the lease deeds got entered in to the revenue records by committing forgery with the Malkan register and Khataunies No. 1405-F to 1410-F. It is a big land scam, which has been committed in pre planned manner by hatching a conspiracy in a fraudulent manner by committing the forgery even in the revenue records. The matter was investigated by the civil police and submitted the charge-sheet dated 7. 6. 2005 only against nine persons namely Moti Lal Goel, Rekesh Goel, Mahavir Prasad, Ajit Gupta, Nitin, Jitendra, Firey, Charan Singh and Ajaj Husain but in the present case the certain. lease holders named as accused in case crime No. 57 of 2005 approached this Court and challenged the F. I. R. dated 27. 2. 2005 by way of filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3783 of 2005 which has been finally decided along with some other writ petitions vide order dated 27. 5. 2005 whereby the direction was issued that the matter be got investigated by C. B. I. In pursuance of the order dated 27. 5. 2005 passed by Division Bench of this Court a fresh F. I. R. was registered with C. B. I. (SPE), Dehradun as F. I. R. No. R. C. 007/05, A-0019 on 15. 7. 2005. After completing the investigation the C. B. I, has submitted the charge-sheet against the applicant and other co-accused persons. The applicant applied for bail before learned Special Judge (C. B. I.) (Prevention of Corruption Act), U. P. East, Ghaziabad who rejected the same on 11. 7. 2007. Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Santosh Tripathi and Sri Manoj Tiwari, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri G. S. Hajela, learned Counsel for C. B. I. It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that in the present case no specific allegation of committing the fraud or forgery has been made against the applicant in the F. I. R. dated 27. 2. 2005, it has been made against the co-accused Moti Lal Goel. It has been specifically alleged that co-accused Moti Lal Goel prepared the forged lease deeds in the name of his mother, brother, Bhabhi, sister, family members and close associates with him, on the basis of forged lease deeds a forgery has been committed in the register of Malkan and Khatauni 1405-F to 1410-F in which the names of forged lease holders were entered in connivance with the officials of revenue department. The applicant was having no knowledge that any forgery has been committed in his name by preparing a forged lease deeds and by playing a fraud his name was entered into the revenue record. The applicant has not claimed his title/ownership or the possession over the land which was entered into the revenue records in his name, even the applicant has not used to gain something on the basis of such forged entries recorded in the revenue record. The matter was investigated by the civil police and the charge-sheet was submitted only against nine persons including the Moti Lal Goel and others. The I. O. has failed to collect any evidence to prove the involvement and participation of the applicant in the alleged forgery. But in pursuance of order dated 27. 5. 2005 passed by Division Bench of this1 Courts even after the submission of the charge-sheet by the civil police, the matter was transferred to C. B. I. But the C. B. I, has submitted the charge-sheet against the applicant also. It is contended that the C. B. I, has not sought the permission from the Court concerned for further investigation under section 173 (8) Cr. P. C. In the present case two F. I. Rs. have been registered against the same cause of action. The second F. I. R. registered by C. B. I, is not permissible under the law. C. B. I, has recorded the statement of the witnesses namely Dheeraj Singh, Om Prakash, Khushi Ram and Har Saran Sharma in which the name of the applicant did not figure. The statement of Naib Tahsildar namely Sanjay Kumar has also been recorded on 18. 8. 2005 and the second statement has been recorded on 31. 8. 2005. In the statement of the Naib tahsildar also, there is nothing against the applicant. But the name of the applicant came in the light in the statement of Mr. D. C. Saxena, Advocate. The applicant is not acquainted with Sri D. C. Saxena, Advocate, he has never been engaged by the applicant to plead his case in Revenue Court, even Sri D. C. Saxena, Advocate is not in a position to identify the applicant. There is no expert opinion against the applicant to show his involvement also. The applicant did not play any role in the land scam done by co-accused Moti Lal Goel. The applicant had also left the employment of Mori Lal Goel many years prior the alleged F. I. R. and the applicant has himself lodged the F. I. R. in respect of the same forgery committed by Sri Moti Lal Goel, on 27. 2. 2005. The F. I. R. was lodged in pursuance of the order passed under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. passed by the learned Magistrate concerned. The F. I. R. was registered under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC in case crime No. 261 of 2005 against Moti Lal Goel at P. S. Kasana in which the charge-sheet has been submitted against the co-accused Moti Lal Goel on which the cognizance has been taken by learned Magistrate concerned on 5. 6. 2006, it's case is pending in the Court of learned I-A. C. J. M. , Ghaziabad vide criminal case No. 3724 of 2006 and the applicant was witness against Lajja Ram, the father of the co-accused Moti Lal Goel in case No. 169 of 2005 under sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 469, 472 and 120-B IPC and 13 (1) (D) read with 13 (2) and 7/12 Anti Corruption Act, in which the charge-sheet has been submitted. In such circumstances, there is no possibility to enter into the conspiracy hatched by the co-accused Moti Lal Goel, the name of the applicant has been deliberately mentioned in the Malkan register by the Moti Lal Goel due to ulterior motive. The prosecution of the applicant in the present case on the basis of the F. I. R. lodged by the C. B. I, is abuse of the process of law/court. The applicant is having no criminal antecedent and no forged document has been used as genuine, applicant is innocent, he may be released on bail.
(3.) IN reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned Counsel for the C. B. I, that applicant is a member of the racket headed by co-accused Moti Lal Goel and by way of playing fraud and committing the forgery the name of the applicant has been entered into the register of Malkan and Khatauni and by way of committing the forgery in connivance with the officials of the revenue department the applicant and other co-accused persons acquired the huge land having the area of 100 hectares, having the valuation of Rs. 600/-corors. It is a case in which the applicant and other co-accused persons have made the forged entries in connivance with the officials of revenue department to show their ownership/title over the land of Gaon Sabha. The entries have been made on the basis of forge proposals of the Gaon Sabha for allotting the land to the applicant and other co-accused persons on the lease. The applicant is one of the main beneficiary and applicant was doing pairavy and claimed his ownership over the land which was entered in his name in the revenue records, he had engaged Sri D. C. Saxena, Advocate and he has handed over his vakalatnama. The vakalatnama was bearing the signatures of the applicant, the same was sent for the opinion to the hand-writing expert, according to the hand-writing expert the vakalatnama was signed by the applicant. It is a case in which the land having the valuation of Rs. 600/- crores is involved, revenue officials are also involved in the same scam because on the basis of the forged entries the mutation of the land was done in the name of the applicant and other co-accused persons. After lodging the F. I. R. , ignoring the documentary evidence available against the applicant the charge-sheet was submitted, by the civil police only against nine persons including the Moti Lal Goel and others, though the investigation was kept pending against the applicant and other co-accused persons but considering the gravity of the offence the Division Bench of this Court handed over the investigation to C. B. I. On 27. 5. 2007, in pursuance of the order dated 27. 5. 2005, the F. I. R. was registered by C. B. I, there is no need of getting the permission for further investigation from the Court concerned under section 173 (8) Cr. P. C. because this direction was given by Division Bench of the High Court and there is no illegality in the further investigation done by C. B. I. It has admitted by applicant himself that he was in the employment of the co-accused Moti Lal Goel but prior lodging the F. I. R. he had left his employment and lodged the F. I. R. against the co-accused Moti Lal Goel but the F. I. R. lodged by the applicant against Moti Lal Goel was on legal advice to save the skin from the offence committed by the applicant because the F. I. R. was lodged by the applicant against co-accused Moti Lal Goel after submission of the charge-sheet by the civil police against Moti Lal Goel and eight other co-accused persons. It was submitted on 26. 6. 2005. thereafter the Division Bench of this Court has transferred the matter for further investigation to C. B. I. On 27. 5. 2007. For the purpose of creating a defence the applicant has lodged the F. I. R. against Moti Lal Goel on 15. 7. 2005. The applicant has lodged the F. I. R. against Moti Lal Goel on 26. 6. 2005 i. e. after the submission of the charge-sheet by the civil police against Moti Lal Goel and others and it has no relevancy that subsequently the applicant became against Lajja Ram, the father of co-accused Moti Lal Goel because both developments have taken place after commission of the alleged offence under the changed circumstances. The F. I. R. was lodged by the applicant against Moti Lal Goel and he became witness against his father in another case. The applicant is also a gainer; in his name 1. 264 hectares land has been entered into revenue records vide Khasra No. 1841. The applicant was resident of village Kasana, legally he is not entitle to have any patta of the land belonging to village Kasana because such patta can be given only to the holders of the Gaon Sabha. The handwriting expert has also given the positive opinion. It is the hand-writing under which applicant claimed over the disputed land on behalf of 89 patta holders. There is sufficient evidence to show that the applicant is actively involved in the commission of the alleged offence, which is of grave in nature. IN such circumstances the applicant may not be released on bail. From the perusal of the record it appears that it is a big land scam because about 100 hectares of land has been illegally acquired having the valuation of more than Rs. 600/- crores on the basis of committing forgery in register Malkan and Khatauni No. 1405-F to 1410-F in connivance with officials of revenue department. In the present case the forged lease deed were also prepared whereas the applicant was not entitled to have any land of village Kasana on Patta (lease) because he was not resident of Gaon Sabha, Kasana. The lease of Gaon Sabha can be allotted only to resident of Gaon Sabha. It is also surprising that on the basis of forged entries made in the revenue records the land was mutated in the name of the applicant and other co-accused persons. It reflects that revenue officials who passed such orders were also involved in the commission of the alleged offence. It is a very serious matter in which the forgery has been committed with register Malkan. It is such important register on which the title/ownership of land is decided but forgery has been made, in such a important register which shows that the racket involved was having high stakes, in such a big land scam the involvement of the many persons including the department concerned is not ruled out. The present case is a big land scam, it has shaken the roots of the revenue department, it has shaken the confidence of a common man. It has attacked on a system. In such cases before passing any order it has to be considered that the confidence of a common man may not be eroded.;