Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:103971 Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 5233 of 2025 Applicant :- Deen Dayal Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Adil Jamal,Shabeh Jamal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State- opposite party, and perused the material placed on record. 3. This application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 350 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427, 384, 447, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Sen Pachim Para, District Kanpur Nagar. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant was erstwhile owner of Araji No. 179 situated at Mauza Satawri, Pargana and Tehsil Kanpur Sadar, District Kanpur Nagar. The araji claimed by the informant was acquired by the State under the Urban Ceiling Act and the possession of the same was handed over to the Kanpur Development Authority. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the report of the Nayab Tehsildar dated 20.03.2024, annexed at Page 83 of the paper book. It is contended that the informant is claiming possession on the araji no. 179. Further, the araji no. 179 has been sold by the applicant to co- accused Birendra Singh Yadav and Vijendra Yadav. The purchasers of the said land have instituted a civil suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 5, Kanpur Nagar, registered as Suit No. 310 of 2024, Birendra Singh Yadav and another v. Jawahar Lal and others. In the said suit an interim order in favour of the purchaser has been granted. Further, co-accused Vijendra Yadav earlier lodged a first information report against the informant registered as Case Crime No. 327 of 2024, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 387, 392 I.P.C., Police Station Sen Paschim Para, District South (Commissionerate Kanpur Nagar). In counterblast to the said proceedings, the instant prosecution has been instituted. The case is purely civil in nature. The opposite party no. 2- informant has attempted to cloak it with criminal flavour only in order to harass the applicant. The applicant has not forged or manipulated any documents. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraphs- 4 to 8 of the supplementary affidavit. The investigation is still pending and the applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above case. 5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, and, in particular, the fact that the araji claimed by the informant was acquired by the State under the Urban Ceiling Act, and the case is purely civil in nature, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 7. In the event of arrest, the applicant- Deen Dayal Gupta, involved in the aforesaid case crime, be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation; (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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; (iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court; (iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court; (v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant; (vi) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98; and, (vii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge, and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. Further, in default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same. 9. The application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 3.7.2025 SKT/- Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad