Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45977 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7263 of 2025 Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Upadhyay Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Virendra Kumar Shukla, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Diwaker Singh, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the complainant. 3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.160 of 2025, under Sections 409, 504, 506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Mohanlalaganj, District Lucknow. 4. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 13.05.2025, stating that the informant had purchased a plot of land measuring 167.28 square meters from H.K. Infra Vision Pvt. Ltd. through its authorized signatory Pramod Kumar Upadhyay (the applicant) on 14.09.2018 but possession of the property was not given to him. Through the F.I.R., the informant had prayed for handing over possession of the property to him. 5. The narration made in the F.I.R prima facie indicates that the informant has treated the F.I.R as a suit for recovery of possession of an immovable property. A dispute regarding non delivery of an immovable property purchased through a registered sale deed is a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature. A person aggrieved from non delivery of possession of property purchased ought to have filed a suit for recovery of possession, obviously after payment of requisite Court fee which would enure to the benefit of the public at large. By filing an F.I.R requesting for delivery of possession of the land purchase, prima facie it appears that the informant has abused the process of criminal justice system. 6. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant's has a long criminal history, which has been explianed in para 16 of the bail application and in para 3 of the Supplementary affidavit filed in support of the bail application. 7. Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the applicant had filed a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5533 of 2025 challenging the validity of the F.I.R. He has produced a copy of the order dated 26.06.2025 passed in the aforesaid writ petition, wherein it is recorded that it was informed at the outset that the applicant had been arrested. The Court had ordered the writ petition be listed after four weeks and it is mentioned in the order that on the next date, the issue regarding allotment of plot and possession shall be considered by the Court. 8. In Gajanan Dattatray Gore vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1571, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the Courts to stop the practice of putting such conditions in orders granting bail. The relevant extract of the the aforesaid judgement is as follows:- "19. By this order, we make it clear and that too in the form of directions that henceforth no Trial Court or any of the High Courts shall pass any order of grant of regular bail or anticipatory bail on any undertaking that the accused might be ready to furnish for the purpose of obtaining appropriate reliefs. 20. The High Courts as well as the Trial Courts shall decide the plea for regular bail or anticipatory bail strictly on the merits of the case. The High Courts and the Trial Courts shall not exercise their discretion in this regard on any undertaking or any statement that the accused may be ready and willing to make. 21. This practice has to be stopped. Litigants are taking the courts for a ride and thereby undermining the dignity and honor of the court. 22. We hope and trust that the High Courts as well as the Trial Courts across the country do not commit the same mistake again." Although, the aforesaid direction have been issued in respect of order granting bail/anticipatory bail, the principles laid down in the judgment of Gajanan Dattatray Gore (supra) would apply to the prayer for stay of arrest also. 9. 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 enlargement of the applicant on bail. 10. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed. 11. Let the applicant- Pramod Kumar Upadhyay be released on bail in aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to the following conditions: - (i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court. . (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Order Date :- 7.8.2025 Preeti. Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench