HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1474 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and Sri Shailendra Mishra, Advocate, who appeared for the opposite party No.2 and filed the Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party No.2, which is taken on record. 2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0299 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 319(2), 61(2) BNS, 2023, Police Station-PGI, District- Lucknow. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is an innocent person and he has falsely been implicated in the case. 4. It is stated that according to the case of the prosecution, in nutshell, the applicant introduced the vendor/seller to informant (purchaser/vendee) namely Dr. Iish Tyagi son of Malkhan Singh and the vendor/seller executed the sale deed in favour of informant and a perusal of the deed would indicate the applicant is not a witness of the deed and as such applicant has not committed any crime and he has been implicated with oblique motive. 5. It is further stated that prior to FIR, registered as FIR No. 0299 of 2025, was lodged on 22.06.2025 at P.S.-PGI, District-Lucknow, in connection with which the applicant can be arrested, indicates that the applicant was known to the informant and the applicant introduced vendor/seller and as such it can be inferred that there was no intention of the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mithila Bakhsh Tiwari, Abhishek Kumar, Ram Pratap Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Tasbir Singh .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) applicant to dupe the informant. 6. Further submitted that in the instant case, there is no allegation that the amount being the mediator was provided to the applicant and there is no evidence available with the prosecution to establsih that the amount appears in CCTV footage i.e. Rs. Fifty Lakh, has been duped by the applicant. The total amount for sale consideration was provided by the informant/opposite party No.2 to the vendor/seller of the property namely Chandra Kishore, co- accused, as is evident from copies of Sale Deed(s) dated 26.04.2025 (Annexure Nos. A-3 and A-4) and in this view of the matter, it is apparent that the applicant is not a beneficiary. 7. It is further submitted that case of applicant is covered by the various judgment(s) of Hon'ble Apex Court in which the Apex Court has deprecated the practice of converting a civil dispute into criminal one. In this regard, reference can be made to the judgment(s) passed in the case(s) 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)]. 8. It is also submitted that making similar allegations an FIR No. 83 of 2025, under Sections 319(2), 318(4) , 338, 336(3), 340(2) BNS, was lodged at P.S.-Nigoha, District-Lucknow and this Court after considering the material available on record has allowed the CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 814 of 2025 vide order dated 19.09.2025. 9. Lastly it is submitted that taking note of aforesaid, the interest of the application be protected else the applicant would be taken into custody. 10. Learned A.G.A. and Shri Shailendra Kumar Mishra, Advocate opposed NABAIL No. 1474 of 2025 2 in the instant application. However, both the counsel could not dispute the aforesaid facts. 11. 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 applicant. 12. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant- Tasbir Singh before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on their 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) the applicant shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) 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; (iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court. (iv) the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v) the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. October 10, 2025 Vinay/Arun NABAIL No. 1474 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench