HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7858 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Virendra Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajnish Kumar Verma, AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 153/2025, under Sections 409 & 420 IPC, Police Station Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 10.05.2025 against the applicant and his brother Vinod Kumar Upadhyay, stating that the complainant had purchased a residential plot from H.K. Infra Vision Pvt. Ltd. in his name and a registered sale deed was executed in this regard on 20.04.2022. It is stated that at the time of execution of the sale deed, the applicant had assured that the complainant would get possession of the land by the year 2022-2023 but the possession has not been delivered to him till date. The complainant has requested in the FIR for taking appropriate action so that the complainant may get possession of the land and his name may be mutated in the record. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant's involvement in 21 other criminal cases has been disclosed in para-16 of the bail application and a supplementary affidavit has been filed disclosing his involvement in 27 other cases. The applicant has already been granted bail in 6 cases and all the cases in which the applicant is involved are of similar nature. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Virendra Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Pramod Kumar Upadhyay .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) 5. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and he has submitted that the investigation is going on. 6. The learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the bail application. He has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Alok Kumar v. the State of Bihar & Ors. in SLP (Crl.) No. 4073/2025 decided on 12.08.2025, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted temporary bail to the petitioner to enable him to deposit an amount of Rs. 9,94,00,357/-. 7. In Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. the State of Maharastra & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 3219/2025, decided on 28.07.2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued an unequivocal directions as under:- "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." 8. The judgment in the case of Gajanan Dattatray Gore had not been taken note of in the subsequent judgment passed in the case of Alok Kumar v. State of Bihar. 9. A copy of the sale deed in question has been annexed with the supplementary affidavit wherein it is stated that possession of the land sold by way of the sale deed has already been delivered to the purchaser. BAIL No. 7858 of 2025 2 10. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the sale deed in respect of the immovable property was executed on 20.04.2022 and it is stated therein that possession of the land has already been delivered to the purchasers; the FIR alleging non delivery of possession has been lodged on 10.05.2025 i.e. after expiry of more than 3 years since execution of the sale deed; the complainant has requested through the FIR to take action to ensure that the purchaser gets possession of the land and mutation of his name is carried out, which relief is essentially of a civil nature, it appears that the complainant is using the criminal justice system for redressal of grievances, which are of civil nature, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 11. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed. 12. Let the applicant-Pramod Kumar Upadhyay be released on bail in the aforesaid 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. August 22, 2025 Pradeep/- BAIL No. 7858 of 2025 3 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench