HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1433 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Brijesh Kumar Yadav, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no.2 is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the record. The accused–applicant seeks anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No. 219 of 2025, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Musafirkhana, District Amethi. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the applicant introduced one Mohd. Shakeel to the informant, who thereafter executed an agreement to sell in favour of the brother of the informant. A sum of Rs.13,00,000/- was agreed upon, out of which Rs.7,00,000/- was paid through a bearer cheque at the time of execution of the agreement, and Rs.5,00,000/- was paid in cash, thus totaling Rs.12,00,000/-. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the admitted case of the prosecution, a civil suit for cancellation of the agreement is pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sultanpur, between the same parties. The applicant is neither the seller, nor the purchaser, nor a witness to the agreement in question. It is thus contended that the dispute is purely civil in nature, and the offences alleged are triable by a Magistrate. The Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Alok Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Brijesh Kumar Yadav Daan Bahadur Yadav .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) applicant undertakes to cooperate with the investigation. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer and submitted that the applicant is the mastermind behind the transaction, however, they do not dispute that the applicant is neither the seller, nor the purchaser, nor a witness to the sale deed, and that the civil suit regarding the same transaction is pending. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. Considering the facts that the applicant has no criminal antecedents; the investigation is in progress; the civil suit is pending between the parties; the applicant’s undertaking to cooperate in the investigation, coupled with the fact that the applicant is neither the seller, purchaser, nor a witness in the sale deed, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, subject to his cooperation in the investigation. Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned, subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer within twenty days from today and shall cooperate in the investigation. 1. The applicant shall not influence any witness or tamper with the evidence. 2. The applicant shall remain present before the Investigating Officer/arresting officer/S.H.O. concerned as and when called for investigation or interrogation. 3. The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court. 4. NABAIL No. 1433 of 2025 2 The application is allowed accordingly. October 7, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S NABAIL No. 1433 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench