High Court · 2025

1. Heard Shri Chandan Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Jayant Singh Tomar, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant.

2. The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by means of the following order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 17.04.2025: "1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for opposite party no.1-State while power on behalf of complainant has been filed by Mr. Lalit Mohan Joshi, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Ms. Shubhra Sahai and Mr. Anuj Rajput, Advocates, which is taken on record.

2. First anticipatory bail application has been filed with regard to case crime No.340 of 2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120-B IPC, P.S. Bakshi Ka Talab, Lucknow.

3. As per contents of first information report, applicant along with co- accused are instrumental in defrauding the complainant by executing sale-deed of a plot over which possession was not delivered.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the allegations levelled against him which could be evident from the FIR in which sale-deed is said to have been executed by main accused Shivnath and not the applicant who is indicated only as being a property dealer. It is submitted that even otherwise the allegations levelled only indicate the fact that unnecessary criminal colour has been sought to be given to a purely civil dispute. It is submitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed anticipatory bail application but does dispute the fact that applicant does not have any previous criminal history. Learned counsel for complainant has also opposed the anticipatory bail application with the submission that entire transaction was done at the behest of applicant into whose account the amount of transaction has also been credited. He prays for sometime for filing of objections.

6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it appears that the main role of execution of sale-deed has been indicated upon co-accused Shivnath while applicant has been indicated only as a property dealer. The aspect of a civil dispute being given a criminal colour would also require examination.

7. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the liberty of the applicant may be protected till filing of police report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

8. In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant- Yogendra Kumar Singh shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid Case Crime number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned with the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall make himself/herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that 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/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant(s) shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant(s) shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; (v) that the applicant(s) shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; (vi) that the applicant(s) shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; (vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions, benefit of this order would not be available to applicant(s).

9. List this case on 07.05.2025, as fresh showing the names of Mr. Lalit Mohan Joshi, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Ms. Shubhra Sahai and Mr. Anuj Rajput, as learned counsel for opposite party whenever the case next listed.

10. Objections may be filed in the meantime."

3. The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith a copy of the materials collected during the investigation.

4. The complainant has also filed a counter affidavit inter alia stating that the applicant, his brother-in-law and other unknown person had threaten the complainant son on 18.04.2025 and she has given a complaint in this regard to the S.H.O. of Police Station Jankipuram but no action has been taken in this regard.

5. However, the copy of the complaint dated 18.04.2025 annexed with the counter affidavit does not contain any proof of its handing over to the S.H.O. Even as per the averments made in the complaint, although the accused persons attempted to assault the complainant's son, he did not suffered any injury or harm in the incident.

6. The complainant has also filed a supplementary counter affidavit and a copy of the charge sheet dated 07.05.2025 has been annexed with the supplementary counter affidavit.

7. The learned A.G.A. does not allege violation of any condition of interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

8. Keeping in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is nothing which may persuade this Court from taking a different view than the one taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicant.

9. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. The interim order dated 17.04.2025 is made absolute in terms of the aforesaid order. Order Date :- 18.8.2025 S. Shivhare SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Shri Chandan Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Jayant Singh Tomar, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant.

2. The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by means of the following order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 17.04.2025: "1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for opposite party no.1-State while power on behalf of complainant has been filed by Mr. Lalit Mohan Joshi, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Ms. Shubhra Sahai and Mr. Anuj Rajput, Advocates, which is taken on record.

2. First anticipatory bail application has been filed with regard to case crime No.340 of 2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120-B IPC, P.S. Bakshi Ka Talab, Lucknow.

3. As per contents of first information report, applicant along with co- accused are instrumental in defrauding the complainant by executing sale-deed of a plot over which possession was not delivered.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the allegations levelled against him which could be evident from the FIR in which sale-deed is said to have been executed by main accused Shivnath and not the applicant who is indicated only as being a property dealer. It is submitted that even otherwise the allegations levelled only indicate the fact that unnecessary criminal colour has been sought to be given to a purely civil dispute. It is submitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed anticipatory bail application but does dispute the fact that applicant does not have any previous criminal history. Learned counsel for complainant has also opposed the anticipatory bail application with the submission that entire transaction was done at the behest of applicant into whose account the amount of transaction has also been credited. He prays for sometime for filing of objections.

6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it appears that the main role of execution of sale-deed has been indicated upon co-accused Shivnath while applicant has been indicated only as a property dealer. The aspect of a civil dispute being given a criminal colour would also require examination.

7. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the liberty of the applicant may be protected till filing of police report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

8. In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant- Yogendra Kumar Singh shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid Case Crime number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned with the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall make himself/herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that 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/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant(s) shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant(s) shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; (v) that the applicant(s) shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; (vi) that the applicant(s) shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; (vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions, benefit of this order would not be available to applicant(s).

9. List this case on 07.05.2025, as fresh showing the names of Mr. Lalit Mohan Joshi, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Ms. Shubhra Sahai and Mr. Anuj Rajput, as learned counsel for opposite party whenever the case next listed.

10. Objections may be filed in the meantime."

3. The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith a copy of the materials collected during the investigation.

4. The complainant has also filed a counter affidavit inter alia stating that the applicant, his brother-in-law and other unknown person had threaten the complainant son on 18.04.2025 and she has given a complaint in this regard to the S.H.O. of Police Station Jankipuram but no action has been taken in this regard.

5. However, the copy of the complaint dated 18.04.2025 annexed with the counter affidavit does not contain any proof of its handing over to the S.H.O. Even as per the averments made in the complaint, although the accused persons attempted to assault the complainant's son, he did not suffered any injury or harm in the incident.

6. The complainant has also filed a supplementary counter affidavit and a copy of the charge sheet dated 07.05.2025 has been annexed with the supplementary counter affidavit.

7. The learned A.G.A. does not allege violation of any condition of interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

8. Keeping in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is nothing which may persuade this Court from taking a different view than the one taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicant.

9. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. The interim order dated 17.04.2025 is made absolute in terms of the aforesaid order. Order Date :- 18.8.2025 S. Shivhare SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench