HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10071 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant as well as perused the record. The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.63 of 2025, under Section 409 IPC, Police Station Aashiyana, District Lucknow North (Commissionerate Lucknow). In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 03.08.2014, a written agreement was executed by Shubhedu Sarkar, Director of Accumen Leasing and Infrastate Private Limited, for the sale of a plot of land measuring 1000 sq. ft. at the rate of Rs. 550 per square foot. It is further alleged that although the entire amount of the instalments towards the said plot was duly deposited, no registered sale deed was initially executed. Subsequently, the company executed the sale deed; however, while doing so, the name of the father of the authorised signatory of the company was maliciously written as Brijmohan instead of Shiv Mohan, and instead of Gomti, the name Hriday Narain was mentioned. Due to these discrepancies, mutation of the property could not take place. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the agreement was executed in the year 2014, whereas the sale deed was executed in the year 2022. Till date, no suit for rectification of the sale Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Wali Nawaz Khan, Gauri Suwan Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Arunendra Pratap Singh, Devesh Kumar Verma, Nisha Kumari, Vandana Singh Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Kumar Tiwari .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) deed has been filed, nor have any civil proceedings been initiated in this regard. After an inordinate delay of several years, the present FIR has been registered. It is further submitted that the applicant is involved in fourteen other criminal cases, the details and explanation of which have been given in paragraph 17 of the bail application. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant has a chequered criminal history involving offences of a similar nature. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record. Having due regard to the submissions advanced, upon perusal of the record, as also considering the judgment of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2024) 10 SCC 690, and further taking into account the fact that after execution of the sale deed, possession of the land has already been delivered to the complainant and no civil proceedings have been instituted by him, the applicant being in jail since 24.09.2025, and he having explained his criminal history in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Vijay Kumar alias Vijay Kumar Tiwari be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned with the following conditions: (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. BAIL No. 10071 of 2025 2 (iii) 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. (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the IPC (now Section 269 BNS). (vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS)is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the IPC (now Section 209 BNS). It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. October 30, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S BAIL No. 10071 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench