Rahul v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Sri Yogesh Kumar Awasthi, learned Standing Counsel for the State, learned AGA and Sri Shailendra Mishra, Advocate, who appeared for the opposite party No.2 and filed the Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party No.2, which is taken on record.

2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0299 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 319(2), 61(2) BNS, 2023, Police Station-PGI, District- Lucknow.

3. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is an innocent person and he has falsely been implicated in the case.

4. It is stated that according to the case of the prosecution, in nutshell, the applicant introduced the vendor/seller to informant (purchaser/vendee) namely Dr. Iish Tyagi son of Malkhan Singh and the vendor/seller executed the sale deed in favour of informant and a perusal of the deed would indicate the applicant is not a witness of the deed and as such applicant has not committed any crime and he has been implicated with oblique motive.

5. It is further stated that prior to FIR, registered as FIR No. 0299 of 2025, was lodged on 22.06.2025 at P.S.-PGI, District-Lucknow, in 2 NABAIL No. 1443 of 2025 connection with which the applicant can be arrested, indicates that the applicant was known to the informant and the applicant introduced vendor/seller and as such it can be inferred that there was no intention of the applicant to dupe the informant.

6. Further submitted that in the instant case, there is no allegation that the amount being the mediator was provided to the applicant and there is no evidence available with the prosecution to establsih that the amount appears in CCTV footage i.e. Rs. Fifty Lakh, has been duped by the applicant. The total amount for sale consideration was provided by the informant/opposite party No.2 to the vendor/seller of the property namely Chandra Kishore, co- accused, as is evident from copies of Sale Deed(s) dated 26.04.2025 (Annexure Nos. A-3 and A-4) and in this view of the matter, it is apparent that the applicant is not a beneficiary.

7. It is further submitted that case of applicant is covered by the various judgment(s) of Hon'ble Apex Court in which the Apex Court has deprecated the practice of converting a civil dispute into criminal one. In this regard, reference can be made to the judgment(s) passed in the case(s) of Deepak Gaba and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, Criminal Appeal No.2328 of 2022, decided on 02.01.2023; Prof R.K. Vijayasarathy & Anr. Vs. Sudha Seetharam & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.238 of 2019, arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.1434 of 2018, decided on

15.02.2019; Lalit Chaturvedi & others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & another, SLP (Crl) No.13485 of 2023, order dated 06.02.2024; Randheer Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2021) 14 SCC 626; Syed Yaseer Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., (2022) 17 SCC 611; Rikhab Birani Vs. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 823; Jay Shri Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 54 and Debu Singh and another Vs. State of U.P. [SLP (Crl.) No.3620 of 2025)].

8. It is also submitted that making similar allegations an FIR No. 83 of 2025, under Sections 319(2), 318(4) , 338, 336(3), 340(2) BNS, was lodged at P.S.-Nigoha, District-Lucknow and this Court after considering the material available on record has allowed the CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 814 of 2025 vide order dated

19.09.2025.

9. Lastly it is submitted that taking note of aforesaid, the interest of the 3 NABAIL No. 1443 of 2025 application be protected else the applicant would be taken into custody.

10. Learned A.G.A. and Shri Shailendra Kumar Mishra, Advocate opposed in the instant application. However, both the counsel could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

11. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.

12. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant-Rahul before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court : (i) the applicant shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court. (iv) the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v) the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

13. It is to be noted that after noticing the facts of the case as also the fact that cases related to the execution of sale deed(s) by imposter (cases of impersonation) and cases of transfer of more than the share in the property are burdening the Courts and Police personnel, this Court asked Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel to call upon Inspector General Registration, Department of Stamp and Registration, Prayagraj, U.P. and discuss on the issue so as to curb such type of cases. 4 NABAIL No. 1443 of 2025

14. In response, the Officer concerned Ms. Neha Sharma, after deliberation appeared before this Court and filed her affidavit, which is taken on record.

15. In the affidavit, in nutshell, it has been indicated that to avoid the cases of impersonation, the Office Order dated 19.11.2015 has been issued, after taking note of provisions of Registration Act, 1908 (in short "Act of 1908") including Sections 34, 58 of the Act and also Rule 308 of U.P. Registration Manual framed under the Act of 1908, and thereafter a Circular dated

11.08.2025 has also been issued and few months before the process of Online PAN authentication has also been introduced and the State Government has published Gazette Notification dated 16.12.2022 to use Aadhar authentication to establish the identity of executants in registration process and the process to use Aadhar authentication in the matter of registration of documents is at the verge of completion.

16. Taking note of aforesaid, it would be appropriate to observed that it is expected from the State Government that the Aadhar authentication in the matter of registration of documents shall be introduced at earliest.

17. In addition, this Court suggests the State Government to introduce Police verification in the matter of registration of documents, in time bound manner, which is being used in some matters related to Indian Passport Act, Arms Act and also in regard to verification of sureties of an accused in criminal cases.

18. Let a copy of this order be sent for necessary compliance of observations made in paras 16 and 17 of this order to the following. (i) Additional Chief Secretary, Stamp and Registration, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. (ii) Inspector General Registration, Department of Stamp and Registration, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh. October 10, 2025 Vinay/Arun (Saurabh Lavania,J.) ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Sri Yogesh Kumar Awasthi, learned Standing Counsel for the State, learned AGA and Sri Shailendra Mishra, Advocate, who appeared for the opposite party No.2 and filed the Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party No.2, which is taken on record.

2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0299 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 319(2), 61(2) BNS, 2023, Police Station-PGI, District- Lucknow.

3. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is an innocent person and he has falsely been implicated in the case.

4. It is stated that according to the case of the prosecution, in nutshell, the applicant introduced the vendor/seller to informant (purchaser/vendee) namely Dr. Iish Tyagi son of Malkhan Singh and the vendor/seller executed the sale deed in favour of informant and a perusal of the deed would indicate the applicant is not a witness of the deed and as such applicant has not committed any crime and he has been implicated with oblique motive.

5. It is further stated that prior to FIR, registered as FIR No. 0299 of 2025, was lodged on 22.06.2025 at P.S.-PGI, District-Lucknow, in 2 NABAIL No. 1443 of 2025 connection with which the applicant can be arrested, indicates that the applicant was known to the informant and the applicant introduced vendor/seller and as such it can be inferred that there was no intention of the applicant to dupe the informant.

6. Further submitted that in the instant case, there is no allegation that the amount being the mediator was provided to the applicant and there is no evidence available with the prosecution to establsih that the amount appears in CCTV footage i.e. Rs. Fifty Lakh, has been duped by the applicant. The total amount for sale consideration was provided by the informant/opposite party No.2 to the vendor/seller of the property namely Chandra Kishore, co- accused, as is evident from copies of Sale Deed(s) dated 26.04.2025 (Annexure Nos. A-3 and A-4) and in this view of the matter, it is apparent that the applicant is not a beneficiary.

7. It is further submitted that case of applicant is covered by the various judgment(s) of Hon'ble Apex Court in which the Apex Court has deprecated the practice of converting a civil dispute into criminal one. In this regard, reference can be made to the judgment(s) passed in the case(s) of Deepak Gaba and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, Criminal Appeal No.2328 of 2022, decided on 02.01.2023; Prof R.K. Vijayasarathy & Anr. Vs. Sudha Seetharam & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.238 of 2019, arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.1434 of 2018, decided on

15.02.2019; Lalit Chaturvedi & others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & another, SLP (Crl) No.13485 of 2023, order dated 06.02.2024; Randheer Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2021) 14 SCC 626; Syed Yaseer Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., (2022) 17 SCC 611; Rikhab Birani Vs. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 823; Jay Shri Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 54 and Debu Singh and another Vs. State of U.P. [SLP (Crl.) No.3620 of 2025)].

8. It is also submitted that making similar allegations an FIR No. 83 of 2025, under Sections 319(2), 318(4) , 338, 336(3), 340(2) BNS, was lodged at P.S.-Nigoha, District-Lucknow and this Court after considering the material available on record has allowed the CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 814 of 2025 vide order dated

19.09.2025.

9. Lastly it is submitted that taking note of aforesaid, the interest of the 3 NABAIL No. 1443 of 2025 application be protected else the applicant would be taken into custody.

10. Learned A.G.A. and Shri Shailendra Kumar Mishra, Advocate opposed in the instant application. However, both the counsel could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

11. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.

12. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant-Rahul before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court : (i) the applicant shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court. (iv) the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v) the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

13. It is to be noted that after noticing the facts of the case as also the fact that cases related to the execution of sale deed(s) by imposter (cases of impersonation) and cases of transfer of more than the share in the property are burdening the Courts and Police personnel, this Court asked Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel to call upon Inspector General Registration, Department of Stamp and Registration, Prayagraj, U.P. and discuss on the issue so as to curb such type of cases. 4 NABAIL No. 1443 of 2025

14. In response, the Officer concerned Ms. Neha Sharma, after deliberation appeared before this Court and filed her affidavit, which is taken on record.

15. In the affidavit, in nutshell, it has been indicated that to avoid the cases of impersonation, the Office Order dated 19.11.2015 has been issued, after taking note of provisions of Registration Act, 1908 (in short "Act of 1908") including Sections 34, 58 of the Act and also Rule 308 of U.P. Registration Manual framed under the Act of 1908, and thereafter a Circular dated

11.08.2025 has also been issued and few months before the process of Online PAN authentication has also been introduced and the State Government has published Gazette Notification dated 16.12.2022 to use Aadhar authentication to establish the identity of executants in registration process and the process to use Aadhar authentication in the matter of registration of documents is at the verge of completion.

16. Taking note of aforesaid, it would be appropriate to observed that it is expected from the State Government that the Aadhar authentication in the matter of registration of documents shall be introduced at earliest.

17. In addition, this Court suggests the State Government to introduce Police verification in the matter of registration of documents, in time bound manner, which is being used in some matters related to Indian Passport Act, Arms Act and also in regard to verification of sureties of an accused in criminal cases.

18. Let a copy of this order be sent for necessary compliance of observations made in paras 16 and 17 of this order to the following. (i) Additional Chief Secretary, Stamp and Registration, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. (ii) Inspector General Registration, Department of Stamp and Registration, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh. October 10, 2025 Vinay/Arun (Saurabh Lavania,J.) ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench