HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1111 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Shri Ajeet Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant as well as Shri Amit Kumar Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and Shri Vivek Chandra, learned counsel for the complainant. 2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R./Case Crime No.0722 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2) of BNS, registered at Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Barabanki. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 23.07.2025 against the applicant, her mother Smt. Ramdevi and another co- accused Naval Kishore, who is an Advocate, stating that the applicant had very good relations with the informant's deceased brother and the informant treated the applicant also like her brother. The applicant and his mother i.e. co-accused Ramdevi had demanded Rs.50,00,000/- for investing in business and they had allured to give a plot measuring 1880 sq. ft. in return. The informant and her husband gave Rs.36,00,000/- to the accused persons in installments. On 13.03.2024, the applicant and his Advocate i.e. co-accused Naval Kishore had got a sale deed in respect of 1880 sq. ft. prepared in favour of the informant, which was a forged copy of the document showing the total value of the Plot of merely Rs.16,00,000/-. Then the informant demanded refund of the balance amount, she was given a cheque issued by co-accused Ramdevi, which was returned by the bank unpaid. Later on the informant came to know that prior to executing sale deed in her favour, the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajeet Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Gaurav Kumar Verma .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) previous owner of the land Smt. Meera Gupta had already executed a sale deed in respect of her entire property in favour of co-accused Ramdevi. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, having no criminal history and he has been falsely been implicated in the present case. 5. The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail application and he has submitted that the investigation in the matter is still going on. 6. The learned counsel for the complainant has also opposed the anticipatory bail application and he has submitted that the applicant and his mother has duped the informant. 7. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the F.I.R. states that the applicant and her mother had taken money from the informant for getting her a plot; that a sale deed was executed in favour of the informant which shows sale consideration to be lesser than the amount paid by the informant; that the informant was given a cheque by the co-accused which has been dishonoured by the bank and there is no averment in the F.I.R. regarding filing of any complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and that the applicant is having no previous criminal history, 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 before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on 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/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 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 NABAIL No. 1111 of 2025 2 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. September 1, 2025 S. Shivhare NABAIL No. 1111 of 2025 3 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench