State Of Up. Thru. Addl Chief Secy. Home Lko. vs Party(s)

2. Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned AGA and Sri Romit Seth, learned counsel for the complainant are present.

3. The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by means of the following order passed on 15.04.2025: "1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1 while power on behalf of informant has been filed by Mr. Romit Seth, Advocate which is taken on record.

2. First Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with regard to Case Crime no.307 of 2022 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali, District Sitapur.

3. As per contents of first information report which has been filed in which twelve persons have been nominated with four unknown persons, the persons nominated at serial nos. 1 to 8 are said to have executed a registered agreement to sell dated 16.06.2022 in favour of applicant along with one another person, Shashank Deep. It is also indicated in F.I.R. that the persons executing agreement to sell did not have any title, ownership or possession of the property which in fact belongs to a Trust.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that it is a case of false implication. Even if the case of prosecution, as emerging from record, is taken as it is, no title has been transferred in favour of applicant and, only on the basis of an agreement to sell, the 2 ABAIL No. 381 of 2025 main ingredient of section 420 IPC i.e. wrongful loss or wrongful gain may not be inferred against applicant in absence of transferring any right or property in his name. It is also submitted that in absence of any wrongful gain or wrongful loss caused to informant, the relevant penal provision of the IPC may not attract against applicant and none of the purchaser of the land from deceased- Lalji Lal, who is shown to have manufactured a forged sale-deed, has been arrayed as accused in the FIR. It is also submitted that co-accused- Vinod Kumar, and co-accused Shashank Deep have been granted protection from arrest vide order dated 22.03.2024 and

05.02.2025 respectively passed in criminal misc. anticipatory bail applications numbered 650 of 2024 and 815 of 2024. It is submitted on behalf of applicant that since he did not have any knowledge of summons having been issued, applicant could not put in appearance before the trial court leading to issuance of non-bailable warrant. He however undertakes that Applicant would cooperate in the investigation.

5. Shri Romit Seth, learned counsel for informant/complainant, submits that the land is owned by a Trust, which was not even possessed by Lalji Lal (since died) or his successors and has been sold and with regard to the same land an agreement to sell has been executed in favour of applicant and co-accused persons and, therefore, it is a case of fraud being committed with regard to the land owned by a Trust. It is submitted that charge sheet has already been filed but non-bailable warrant has thereafter been issued against applicant.

6. Be that as it may, there cannot be any dispute that litigation between the parties with regard to the land in question is pending before the Board of Revenue as well as before a coordinate bench of this court.

7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that applicant has been nominated in F.I.R. only on the basis that agreement to sell has been executed in his favour. The aspect of whether provisions of Sections 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. would be applicable upon applicant in view of fact that agreement to sell does not confer or transfer any title would be subject matter of evidence. Previous criminal history of one case against applicant has already been explained in paragraph 3 of affidavit filed in support of bail application. Thus, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, it would be appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C./482 BNNS.

8. List this case on 05.05.2025 as fresh.

9. Objections may be filed in the meantime.

10. In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant Pushpendra shall be released on anticipatory bail in aforesaid Case Crime number on 3 ABAIL No. 381 of 2025 his/her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or tamper with the evidence; (ii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iii)The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; (iv)The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; (v) In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail; Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed. "

4. As per report dated 30.06.2025 sent by the CJM, a non-bailable warrant has been issued against co-accused Haneef but the learned counsel for the complainant informs the Court that Haneef is already dead.

5. The opposite party no. 2 as well as the State have chosen not to file counter affidavit, opposing the anticipatory bail application.

6. In these circumstances, this Court finds no good ground to take a view different from the view taken by a Coordinate bench of this Court on

15.04.2025 granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.

7. In view of above, the interim order dated 15.04.2025 is made absolute and the anticipatory bail application is allowed. September 15, 2025 Anurag (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned AGA and Sri Romit Seth, learned counsel for the complainant are present.

3. The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by means of the following order passed on 15.04.2025: "1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1 while power on behalf of informant has been filed by Mr. Romit Seth, Advocate which is taken on record.

2. First Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with regard to Case Crime no.307 of 2022 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali, District Sitapur.

3. As per contents of first information report which has been filed in which twelve persons have been nominated with four unknown persons, the persons nominated at serial nos. 1 to 8 are said to have executed a registered agreement to sell dated 16.06.2022 in favour of applicant along with one another person, Shashank Deep. It is also indicated in F.I.R. that the persons executing agreement to sell did not have any title, ownership or possession of the property which in fact belongs to a Trust.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that it is a case of false implication. Even if the case of prosecution, as emerging from record, is taken as it is, no title has been transferred in favour of applicant and, only on the basis of an agreement to sell, the 2 ABAIL No. 381 of 2025 main ingredient of section 420 IPC i.e. wrongful loss or wrongful gain may not be inferred against applicant in absence of transferring any right or property in his name. It is also submitted that in absence of any wrongful gain or wrongful loss caused to informant, the relevant penal provision of the IPC may not attract against applicant and none of the purchaser of the land from deceased- Lalji Lal, who is shown to have manufactured a forged sale-deed, has been arrayed as accused in the FIR. It is also submitted that co-accused- Vinod Kumar, and co-accused Shashank Deep have been granted protection from arrest vide order dated 22.03.2024 and

05.02.2025 respectively passed in criminal misc. anticipatory bail applications numbered 650 of 2024 and 815 of 2024. It is submitted on behalf of applicant that since he did not have any knowledge of summons having been issued, applicant could not put in appearance before the trial court leading to issuance of non-bailable warrant. He however undertakes that Applicant would cooperate in the investigation.

5. Shri Romit Seth, learned counsel for informant/complainant, submits that the land is owned by a Trust, which was not even possessed by Lalji Lal (since died) or his successors and has been sold and with regard to the same land an agreement to sell has been executed in favour of applicant and co-accused persons and, therefore, it is a case of fraud being committed with regard to the land owned by a Trust. It is submitted that charge sheet has already been filed but non-bailable warrant has thereafter been issued against applicant.

6. Be that as it may, there cannot be any dispute that litigation between the parties with regard to the land in question is pending before the Board of Revenue as well as before a coordinate bench of this court.

7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that applicant has been nominated in F.I.R. only on the basis that agreement to sell has been executed in his favour. The aspect of whether provisions of Sections 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. would be applicable upon applicant in view of fact that agreement to sell does not confer or transfer any title would be subject matter of evidence. Previous criminal history of one case against applicant has already been explained in paragraph 3 of affidavit filed in support of bail application. Thus, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, it would be appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C./482 BNNS.

8. List this case on 05.05.2025 as fresh.

9. Objections may be filed in the meantime.

10. In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant Pushpendra shall be released on anticipatory bail in aforesaid Case Crime number on 3 ABAIL No. 381 of 2025 his/her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or tamper with the evidence; (ii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iii)The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; (iv)The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; (v) In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail; Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed. "

4. As per report dated 30.06.2025 sent by the CJM, a non-bailable warrant has been issued against co-accused Haneef but the learned counsel for the complainant informs the Court that Haneef is already dead.

5. The opposite party no. 2 as well as the State have chosen not to file counter affidavit, opposing the anticipatory bail application.

6. In these circumstances, this Court finds no good ground to take a view different from the view taken by a Coordinate bench of this Court on

15.04.2025 granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.

7. In view of above, the interim order dated 15.04.2025 is made absolute and the anticipatory bail application is allowed. September 15, 2025 Anurag (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench