HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated Nainital the 4th May, 2009 First Bail Application No. 942 of 2008 Order on the bail application of the accused. Ravikant Kariyana S/o Shri Shyamal Singh …….. Applicant Versus Central Bureau of Investigation Through S.S.P., C.B.I. Dehradun …….. Opposite Party In R.C. No. 007200650009 and R.C. No. 007200650010 U/s 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. Police Station C.B.I. in S.T. No. 6811 of 2008 C.B.I. Vs. Ravikant Kariyana Hon’ble J. C. S. Rawat, J. Heard Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the accused/applicant; Mr. U.K. Uniyal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the respondent; and perused the record. Perusal of the record reveals that one Anand Prakash Jain had a property in Dehradun. He was given notice u/s 8 of the Ceiling Act and thereafter the competent authority allowed him to retain the possession of 2000 sq. meters whereas the remaining 26691 sq. meters located in Dehradun was declared surplus. Later on by the order of the District Judge, the surplus land was reduced to 22434 sq. meters and the said order was affirmed by the High Court as well as by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Later on Suit No. 756 of 1993 was filed by Ajit Singh and others suppressing the fact that the disputed land in the part of surplus land in which a compromise was recorded on 15/12/1993 and suit was decreed for the part of the surplus land. The said suit was filed by S.K. Gulati, Advocate on behalf of the plaintiff who has stated u/s 161 Cr.P.C. that the said suit was filed on the instruction and on the identification of the plaintiff of the accused/applicant. In the suit, forged agreement to sell was produced. It was alleged that a power of attorney dated 10/01/1994 was got registered in favour of the accused/applicant by the so called plaintiff of the suit and on the basis of the said power of attorney sale deeds were executed in favour of the so called plaintiffs on 16/03/1994. The land was accordingly mutated by the Revenue authority pursuant to the order of the Civil Court. According to the statement of Mohinder Singh, agreement to sell on 05/12/1974, power of attorney dated 10/01/1994 and sale deed dated 16/03/1994 were forged and was never registered with the office of the Divisional Commissioner, Delhi or elsewhere in the Sub-Registrar Office, Tis Hazari, Delhi. It is further revealed that so called plaintiffs of suit No. 756 of 1993 Ram Niwas, Ranjeet Singh, Surendra Prakash, Ajit Singh were fake persons and they were not found residing in the given address and are non-existent persons. There is evidence in the case diary in support of the above facts. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case in totality, it is not a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) Dated 04.05.2009 Shiv