HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36491 of 2025 Court No. - 68 HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard Shri S.K. Chaubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Vijit Saxena, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. The instant bail application on behalf of the applicant, Dharmender Singh, has been filed seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 884 of 2019, u/s 420, 406, 504, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Bisrakh, District Gautam Buddha Nagar during the pendency of the trial before the trial court. The bail application of the applicant before the trial court was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd /Special Judge SC/ST Act, Gautam Buddha Nagar vide order dated 16.09.2025 and the applicant is stated to be languishing in jail since 05.08.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that applicant is entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case for ulterior motives. The applicant is named in the F.I.R., which has been lodged with the allegation that the applicant had sold a flat to the informant on 12.09.2016. The informant and applicant became acquainted to each other. In November, 2017, the applicant borrowed a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- and Rs. 12,00,000/- was credited into the bank account of the applicant and Rs. 3,00,000/- was given in cash. The applicant assured the informant of repayment of the sum borrowed at the earliest. The applicant was constructing shops over plot nos. 62, 63 and 64 of Khasra No. 204 M. The applicant offered the informant one shop, if he booked one shop for Rs. 7,50,000/-. The informant is stated to have booked two shops on Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arvind Giri, Jitendra Kumar Shishodia, Krishna Gautam, Mohd. Afzal, Surendra Kumar Chaubey, Swati Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vijit Saxena Dharmender Singh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 05.01.2018 and paid the amount through cheque. The F.I.R. further alleges that when the informant asked for repayment of Rs. 15,00,000/- he was handed over a cheque for Rs. 15,00,000/- (Cheque No. 627216 dated 07.07.2018), which however was got dishonoured when presented for payment. The applicant again gave assurance to the informant that the cheque would be honoured, if presented it again, but when presented again the same was again dishonoured. The applicant refused to repay the amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- lacs but he was ready to sell shop no. 04, situate over plot no. 59, 60 & 61 for a consideration of Rs. 12,50,000/- which amount would be adjusted against the borrowed money. The applicant is stated to have executed sale deed of the shop no. 4 in favour of the informant on 15.09.2018. The remaining Rs. 3,00,000/- was assured to be given to the informant. Later on, it was discovered that the applicant had already executed the sale deed of shop no. 4 on 02.02.2018 in favour of NKV Developers through its proprietor Rajiv Kumar. It was stated in the F.I.R. that the applicant had cheated the informant for a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- in all. It has been argued that the applicant was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 07.02.2020 during investigation and till conclusion of trial passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 502 of 2020, which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 6 to the bail application. However, the applicant could not appear and co-operate in the trial and he was arrested by issuance of N.B.W. on 08.08.2022. The applicant was released on bail vide order dated 11.08.2022. The bail granted to the applicant was cancelled vide order dated 26.04.2023. The challenge to the aforesaid bail cancellation order also failed and the applicant was arrested on 05.08.2025 and is incarcerated in jail since then. Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the dispute in the present case is purely civil which has been given a criminal colour. No offence of cheating or forgery is made out against the applicant. It is also argued that the applicant in order to settle the dispute with the informant executed a sale deed of Flat No. 104 situate in Shahbari Noida, Flat No. 204 and Plots Nos. 59, 60 and 61 in lieu of Rs. 12,50,000/-. Thereafter the applicant has executed sale deed in favour of the sister-in- law, Smt. Renu, in lieu of Rs. 15 Lacs advanced to the informant and BAIL No. 36491 of 2025 2 nothing further remained due from the applicant. It is also argued that there is no criminality attached to the alleged transactions and no offence under sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. can be said to be made out against the applicant. It is submitted that infact both sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. cannot coexist, simultaneously, in the same set of facts. It is argued that every act of breach of trust may not result in a penal offence of criminal breach of trust unless there is evidence of manipulating act of fraudulent misappropriation, which is clearly lacking in the present case. An act of breach of trust involves a civil wrong in respect of which the person may seek his remedy for damages in civil courts. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Apex Courts rendered in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Other Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another decided on 23.08.2024 and reported in 2024 (10) SCC 690. It is next argued that the charge sheet against the applicant has already been filed on 23.02.2020 and cognizance of the same has already been taken by the court concerned on 15.07.2020. The custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required. The criminal antecedents of the applicant have been duly explained and the applicant undertakes to co- operate in the trial and shall not misuse the liberty of bail if bail is granted. Hence, bail is prayed for. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as also Shri Vijit Saxena, learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail plea by submitting that the applicant has not approached this Court with clean hands. The applicant was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 07.02.2020 till conclusion of trial on certain conditions. The conditions were flouted by the applicant, charge-sheet was submitted. Applicant deliberately and intentionally avoided the proceedings and never appeared before the court. Consequently, non-bailable warrant was issued against the applicant on 07.07.2022. This court in an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 21193 of 2022 refused to quash the non-bailable warrant issued against the applicant vide order dated 26.07.2022, however directed the applicant to surrender before the Court below within two weeks and apply for bail which would be considered in accordance with law. The applicant appeared and was taken into custody and released on bail on 11.08.2022 on the basis of a compromise entered between the BAIL No. 36491 of 2025 3 parties. The terms of the compromise were also not complied with by the applicant and the bail granted stood cancelled vide order dated 26.04.2023. The order dated 26.04.2023 was assailed by the applicant by means of application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 18517 of 2023, which was rejected vide order dated 14.06.2023. The order dated 14.06.2023 was assailed in SLP (Criminal) No. 7985 of 2023 and the same was dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 12.10.2023 thereby affirming the bail cancellation order observing that "the applicant is repeatedly flouting his commitments made to the Court and obligations imposed by him by the court. In these circumstances, this Court sees no reasons to disturb the impugned order dated 14.06.2023 in the application u/s 482 No. 18517 of 2023. The SLP is accordingly dismissed." It is next contended that the applicant instead of surrendering before the court preferred yet another application under section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 28140 of 2023 and got the matter referred to mediation center. The mediation proceedings failed at the instance of the applicant. Ultimately, the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 28140 of 2023 was dismissed by imposing cost upon the applicant to the tune of Rs. 40,000/-. It is further contended by learned counsel for the informant that the applicant choose not to appear before the Court and the court was compelled to resort to proceedings u/s 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. to ensure the presence. Ultimately, the applicant was arrested and put behind bars on 05.08.2023. It is also submitted that the applicant knowingly has executed sale deeds in favour of the informant and his sister-in-law of the property which has already been acquired by Greater Noida, Industrial Development Authority and status quo order is operating thereon. The applicant is guilty of committing offence as alleged and his bail application warrants outright rejection. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking note of all the above, the court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. April 9, 2026 Vibha Singh BAIL No. 36491 of 2025 4 (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIBHA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- VIBHA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad