HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1768 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime Crime No. 0143/2025, Under Section 351(3), 352, 340(2) 336(3), 338, 318(4) and 319(2) BNS, 2023, Police Station Gomti Nagar Extension, District- Lucknow. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Chandan Srivastava, learned counsel for the complainant. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the applicant obtained the signatures of the complainant on 20–30 blank papers and thereafter, on 17.10.2018, got a gift deed registered in his favour in respect of half portion of House No. 1/98, Vardan Khand, Sector-1, Gomti Nagar Extension, Lucknow. In this regard, FIR No. 142 of 2020 was lodged. It is also stated that the complainant has instituted Civil Suit No. 914 of 2019 seeking cancellation of the said gift deed, which is presently pending before the competent Court and is being contested by both parties. Furthermore, it is alleged that on 05.11.2022, the applicant, Santosh Kumar Maurya, executed another gift deed in favour of co-accused, Sunita Maurya. It is further asserted that the applicant and co-accused are making persistent efforts to oust the complainant from the house. The complainant claims herself to be the legally wedded wife of the applicant. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sameer Singh, Ravi Singh, Sakshi Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Chandan Srivastava, Sheo Prakash Singh Santosh Kumar Maurya .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the complainant is not the legally wedded wife of the applicant; rather, co-accused, Sunita Maurya, is the lawful spouse of the applicant. It is submitted that after the execution of the first gift deed by the complainant in favour of the applicant, he became the exclusive owner of the property and was well within his rights to subsequently execute a gift deed in favour of Sunita Maurya. The civil suit pertaining to cancellation of the first gift deed is already pending adjudication. It is further contended that except for the five cases lodged by the complainant and her brother, the applicant has no criminal antecedents, and those cases have been duly explained in paragraph 15 of the bail application. It is also submitted that a purely civil dispute is being given a criminal colour. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami & Another vs. State of Uttaranchal & Others, (2007) 12 SCC 1, wherein it has been held that criminal law should not be allowed to be misused for the settlement of civil disputes. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is a mischievous person, has been dismissed from service, and that the complainant is in fact the legally wedded wife of the applicant. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application. Having considered the rival submissions, the fact that the applicant has explained his criminal antecedents in paragraph 32 of the bail application, the nature of the offences which are triable by the Magistrate, the civil litigation already pending between the parties, and the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant to cooperate in the investigation, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal & Others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, subject to his full cooperation in the investigation. In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid Case NABAIL No. 1768 of 2025 2 Crime number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned with the following conditions:- The applicant shall report to the investigating officer within twenty days from today. He shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. The application is allowed. November 26, 2025 R.C. NABAIL No. 1768 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench