HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9950 of 2026 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Learned counsel for the applicant; Learned A.G.A. for the State; and Shri Anand Kumar Tiwari, Learned counsel for the informant. 2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.0193 of 2026, under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of the B.N.S., 2023, Police Station – Jhunsi, District Prayagraj, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, as the applicant apprehends his arrest in the aforesaid case. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is merely a marginal witness to the sale deeds executed by Jiya Lal and Hoob Lal. The allegation is that over the properties that were sold to the informant and his wife through different sale deeds in the year 2024 and 2025, some other persons were raising constructions. The Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant is neither the owner of the property in question nor a beneficiary of the sale deed. Being a marginal witness, he has only been implicated to create pressure on the other accused. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. 4. Shri Anand Kumar Tiwari, Learned counsel, has contended that the applicant is one of the primary accused in the present case. He was the one who had shown the property which was actually not the property being sold. Sri Tiwari has further contended that approximately Rs.10 lakhs has been received by the applicant from the co-accused Jiya Lal, who had executed the fake sale deeds in favour of the informant and his Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kavindra Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anand Kumar Tiwari, G.A. Sunil Kumar Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) wife. 5. The Learned AGA has also adopted the submissions of the Learned counsel for the informant but could not point out any criminal antecedents of the applicant. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the parties. 7. The allegation is of four sale deeds being executed in favour of the informant and his wife in the years 2024 to 2025. The informant, after Holi, when he came to know that someone was raising constructions over the property sold to him, confronted the co-accused Jiya Lal and Amit Kumar and asked them to show the property which had been sold, which was avoided by the co-accused Jiya Lal and Amit Kumar. On threats being extended by the applicant for initiating police action, the accused Jiya Lal and Amit Kumar admitted to their mistake and assured return of the money that was paid for the registered sale deeds. The co-accused Jiya Lal and Amit Kumar are also stated to have given cheques of Rs. 20 lakhs and Rs. 33 lakhs as guarantee for the return of the money. It has been informed by the learned counsel for the informant that the cheques have been dishonored. 8. Be that as it may, from the averments of the FIR it appears that for the sale deeds, the sale consideration was sought to be returned through cheques mentioned above. For the cheques that have been dishonored, the remedy lies under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The applicant is merely a marginal witness. The fact that the applicant has received some money from Jiya Lal would not necessarily incriminate the applicant once Jiya Lal has given cheques to refund the sale consideration to the informant. 9. On a pointed query made to the Learned counsel for the informant and the Learned AGA whether the title over the property sold through the sale deed is disputed, the Learned counsel for the informant and the Learned AGA do not dispute the title of Jiya Lal. The allegations are of showing a different property and then selling another property. In the prima facie opinion of the Court, the dispute appears to be a civil dispute. 10. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed above, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the applicant on NABAIL No. 9950 of 2026 2 anticipatory bail. 11. The anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. 12. In the event of the arrest of the applicant- Sunil Kumar Yadav, involved in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station/Court concerned, with the following conditions:- i. The applicant shall make himself 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; iii. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; iv. The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness; 13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail. 14. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and are not to be considered to be an opinion on the merits of the case. October 1, 2026 Kushal NABAIL No. 9950 of 2026 3 (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- KUSHAL AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad