BAIL/17756/2026 of TEJASAVI Vs STATE OF U.P. on 7 October 2026

1. Sri Hari Keshav, learned counsel for the applicant has hands up supplementary affidavit showing the status of the trial, which is conceded by learned AGA from whom instructions was sought in order dated 24.8.2026, the same is taken on record. 1A. Heard Sri Keshav, learned counsel for accused applicant, Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant accused- Tejasavi to enlarge her on bail in Case Crime No. 88 of 2026, under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, P.S.- Titawi, District- Muzaffar Nagar during the pendency of trial.

3. It is the contention of learned counsel for accused applicant that the accused applicant has been falsely implicated in FIR dated 3.4.2026 lodged by Nand Kishore Pundir with the allegation that the sale deed, which was executed in favour of wife of the informant was a forged deed executed by the co-accused- Tarun, though, the property belong to the wife of Tarun co-accused Anuradha. It is further contended that the accused applicant is Consolidation Lekhpal and he has no role in the present case. The initial allegation against the accused applicant is that she has never been asked about the veracity of the revenue records of Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akash Tyagi, Dhiraj Kumar Pandey, Hari Keshav, Neha Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Manoj Kumar Singh, Rajesh Kumar Singh Tejasavi .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s)

Tarun. It is further contended that the sale certificate, which is stated to be prepared by him has never been used for the purpose of taking KCC loan. It is further contended that even the sale certificate has not been prepared and issued by him. The departmental inquiry is also proceedings against the accused applicant. He has been falsely implicated in this case. The charge sheet has been submitted. The applicant has one case criminal history, in which, the final report has been submitted. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.4.2026. The trial is still at the nascent stage. He seeks enlargement of accused on bail.

4. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have opposed the bail and submits that the accused applicant has the main role. It is he, who has prepared a forged CH Form No. 11 showing the name of Tarun in the consolidation record and after the execution of sale deed, the record has been vanished. It is further contended that the sale certificate has been issued by the accused applicant in the name of wife of the informant. It is further contended that the accused applicant is instrumental in getting the land transferred. He has the main role. As such, submits that the bail application should be rejected.

5. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Considered that the CH Form No. 11 has been forged to show the name of co-accused Tarun and the sale certificate has been issued during the tenure of the accused applicant, which ought not to have been issued. Hence, without touching into the merit of the case, the bail application is Rejected. October 8, 2026 Krishna* BAIL No. 17756 of 2026 2 (Avnish Saxena,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad