Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 158803 (ALL)

ASHISH SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME U.P. GOVT. LKO. U.P. AND ANOTHER

NABAIL/1061/2025 · 2025-08-21

Subhash Vidyarthi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:49195 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1061 of 2025 Applicant :- Ashish Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Govt. Lko. U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Yadav,Dinesh Pratap Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Nagarjun Pandey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records. 2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.0205 of 2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C., registered at Police Station Hasanganj, District Lucknow. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 05.09.2024 against four persons including the applicant stating that the informant had executed sale deed in respect of a part of his land in favour of co-accused Chhotey Lal on 21.05.2024, but thereafter the accused persons deceitfully got another sale deed executed in favour of Chhotey Lal on 29.05.2024. Although, the second sale deed shows the consideration amount to be Rs.20,00,000/-, out of which Rs.14,00,000/- were paid through RTGS and Rs.6,00,000/- in cash in various installments, but no amount has been paid to the informant. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail- application it has been contended that the applicant is innocent, he has no criminal history and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. 5. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant annexing therewith copy of additional statement of the informant recorded by the Investigating Officer. 6. The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter. 7. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that two sale deeds were purportedly executed by the complainant in favour of co- accused Chhotey Lal; that the execution of both the sale deeds was witnessed by the same set of persons, including the applicant; that the complainant has no grievance against execution of the first sale deed and he states that he has not received the sale consideration of the sale deed and the second sale deed has been got executed deceitfully and the applicant has not received any consideration amount in respect of sale deed coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and without making any observations which may affect the outcome 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. 8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant-Ashish Singh before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his 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). that the applicant shall make himself 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court' (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. . (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Ram. Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench