HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1460 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1. Heard Sri Ajeet Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants as well as learned AGA for the State of U.P. 2. The instant application has been filed by the applicants seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R./Case Crime No.0781 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 352, 351(3), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 3(5) B.N.S. registered at Police Station- Kotwali, District- Barabanki. 3. It is stated that the applicants are the vendor of the property in issue and as per the case of prosecution, the applicants executed a sale deed of the joint family property. 4. It is further stated that the interest of co-accused namely Brijendra Kumar @ Vinod Kumar (purchaser of the property), Satish Kumar & Ranjit Kumar and Pawan Kumar have already been protected by this Court vide final order(s) dated 09.09.2025 and 09.09.2025 passed by this Court in CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS Nos. 1200 of 2025 and 1175 of 2025. 5. It is further stated that the case setup in the FIR is also covered by various pronouncements rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Deepak Gaba and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, Criminal Appeal No.2328 of 2022, decided on 02.01.2023; Prof R.K. Vijayasarathy & Anr. Vs. Sudha Seetharam & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.238 of 2019, arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.1434 of 2018, decided on 15.02.2019; Lalit Chaturvedi & others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & another, SLP (Crl) No.13485 of 2023, order dated 06.02.2024; Randheer Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2021) 14 SCC 626; Syed Yaseer Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., (2022) 17 SCC 611; Rikhab Birani Vs. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 823; Jay Shri Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 54 and Debu Singh and another Vs. State of U.P. [SLP (Crl.) No.3620 of 2025)], as per which, the Hon'ble Apex Court has deprecated the practice of converting the civil disputes into criminal ones. 6. Learned A.G.A. opposed in the instant application, however, he could not dispute the aforesaid facts. 7. 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 granting anticipatory bail to the applicants. 8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicants- Pramod Kumar Verma, Virendra Kumar Verma, Vinod Kumar Verma and Anoop Singh before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajeet Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Pramod Kumar Verma And 3 Others .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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 applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the applicants 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 applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court. (iv) that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v) that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. October 9, 2025 Arun/- NABAIL No. 1460 of 2025 2 (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench