HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1336 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Wali Nawaz Khan, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Virendra Kumar, learned AGA-I for the State and Sri Dhanesh Narayan, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the records. 2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 64/2025, under Sections 406, 420, 506 Indian Penal Code, 1860 in which during investigation Section 409 IPC has also been added at Police Station Aashiyan, District Lucknow East (Commissionerate Lucknow). 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on 22.05.2025 against 11 named persons, including the applicant, and two unnamed persons, stating that the informant's husband had purchased a plot of land from Acumen Leasing and Infrastate Pvt. Ltd. and had paid the sale consideration on 09.02.2015. However, for a long time no transfer deed was executed and when the informant's husband stated that he would initiate legal proceedings, a sale deed was executed on 28.08.2021. Mutation was also carried out in furtherance thereof. Subsequently, a plan was shown to the informant stating that after it is approved, a boundary wall may be constructed. After some time, in place of the signboard of Acumen Leasing and Infrastate Pvt. Ltd., a signboard of Vaman Infrabuilt Pvt. Ltd. was Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Wali Nawaz Khan, Gauri Suwan Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Abhishek Pandey, Dhanesh Narayan Vijay Kumar .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) affixed on the place. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. 5. The applicant's involvement in 14 other cases has been disclosed in paragraph-20 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, one of which relates to offence under Section 302 IPC in which closure report has been submitted and rest of the cases are similar in nature. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been granted bail in another case of similar nature by means of an order dated 03.09.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8198 of 2025. He has submitted that the allegations in the present case are similar in nature and, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in the present case also. 7. Per contra, the learned AGA-I and the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the anticipatory bail application. 8. The learned AGA-I has submitted that the investigation in the matter is still going on. 9. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the applicant is already in custody in connection with another case of similar nature and the police has moved an application for taking his remand in the present case also. 10. In reply to the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the remand application has been moved after service of notice of the instant application and it has been brought to the notice of the trial court that the present application is scheduled to be heard by this Court and, therefore, no order has been passed on the remand application. 11. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the sale deed categorically mentions that the possession of the land has been delivered to the purchaser. He has further submitted that in any case, non delivery of possession makes out a case of civil dispute and the criminal prosecution is NABAIL No. 1336 of 2025 2 not warranted. 12. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the allegations levelled in the FIR coupled with a long criminal history of cases of similar nature from which it transpires that the accused persons had developed a residential colony and possession of the plot has not been given to any of the numerous purchasers of the scheme which has led to filing of numerous FIRs against the applicant and that in the other case the applicant has been granted regular bail, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts do not warrant exercise of discretion of this Court by granting pre arrest bail to the applicant. 13. Accordingly, anticipatory bail application is rejected. 14. In case the applicant files an application for his release on bail, the bail application shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law without being influenced by rejection of his anticipatory bail application. September 24, 2025 Pradeep/- NABAIL No. 1336 of 2025 3 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench