Priya Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J

Heard Mr. Akhilesh Kalra, Advocate with Mr. C.K. Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant and Mr. J.S. Virk, AGA with Ms. Mamta Joshi, Brief Holder, for the State of Uttarakhand.

The applicant is in jail having been implicated in FIR No.0047 of 2018, which has been registered under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and under Sections 8/9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station - Rudrapur, District- Udham Singh Nagar.

The matter relates to the acquisition of land for construction of National Highway No.74. In this case, as per the prosecution, the entire acquisition, and mainly the payment of compensation, a scam has been discovered as per the report of the Divisional Commissioner, Kumaon. Later it was found that agricultural land of many of the farmers and other persons was changed by manipulation of revenue records, from a back date, in order to get a much higher compensation. Many of the Government Officers are presently in jail. For the purposes of construction of National Highway No.74, the land of one Ajmer Singh was acquired, which was converted from a back date, under Section 143 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and an amount of Rupees Twelve Crore Fifty Lakh was received by Ajmer Singh. Zeeshan was the intermediary between the applicant and the authority concerned.

The case against the present applicant is that she was working along with Zeeshan in this operation.

On the other hand, the case of the applicant is that many of the co-accused who are connected with the case have already been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that there is no evidence against the applicant. The learned State Counsel, would, however, argue that Zeeshan has not been granted bail.

As far as the present applicant is concerned, she was earlier granted a short term bail by this Court vide order dated 12.11.2018 for a period of one month on ground that she has to look after her daughter, which the applicant has availed.

Learned counsel for the State would argue that the bail of the present applicant is being opposed as the applicant was evading her arrest and was absconding and was only arrested when the proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of CrPC have been initiated against her, although the learned counsel for the applicant - Mr. Akhilesh Kalra denies this fact.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. The bail application is hereby rejected.

It is made clear that any observation made by this Court is only for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and it shall not be taken into consideration at all in any other proceedings.