HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 7371 of 2026 Court No. - 55 HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard Dr. C.P. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Aditya Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Sandeep Chaudhary, learned AGA and perused the material available on record. 2. The present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Nirdosh Chaudhary in Case Crime No. 209 of 2019, under Sections 218, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C., Sections 13, 13(i)a, 13(i)b, 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station - Beeta-2, District - Gautam Budh Nagar. 3. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant that applicant is a private person and it is alleged that applicant has purchased the land from the farmers and thereafter sold the aforesaid land to the Development Authority. It is further submitted that simple sale and purchase transaction cannot amount to criminal offence unless the ingredients of the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. is satisfied. In the present case the ingredients are not satisfied to that extent. There is no allegation against the applicant that sale transaction was sham in nature. It is further submitted by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant that applicant is innocent and has no concern with the present matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. No prima facie case is made out against the applicant. The charge sheet has been Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aditya Prasad Mishra, Ashish Kumar Mishra, Girish Chandra Yadav, Prathamesh Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Nirdosh Chaudhary .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) submitted on 23.2.2026. If the applicant is enlarged on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and cooperate with the trial. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest by the police any time. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph nos. 3, 4 and 5 of the supplementary affidavit dated 1.9.2026. 4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer and submits that applicant is relative of one V.P. Singh who was the then OSD in the Development Authority. Learned A.G.A. further submits that entire purchase by the Development Authority has been made at the behest of the person who are relatives of the officers of the Development Authority. 5. It is not shown by learned AGA that the offence in question will have impact on society at large. It is not shown that act causes harm to the society. The accusations arise out of dispute between individuals. It is not shown by learned AGA that the nature and gravity of allegations are such that the same would disentitle the applicant for relief of anticipatory bail. Learned AGA has not raised concern that any prejudice would be caused to free, fair and full trial in the event the applicant is granted anticipatory bail. No material, facts, circumstances or concern been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence. 6. Learned AGA for the State has pointed out the criminal antecedents of the applicant. No material or circumstance has been brought to the notice of this Court with regard to tampering of evidence or intimidating of witness in previous criminal cases. 7. In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, the Apex Court in para 30 has observed:- "We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history- sheeter we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked." NABAIL No. 7371 of 2026 2 8. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. 9. In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent. 10. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State. 10-A. It is to be seen that insofar as the applicant is concerned the applicant has purchased the land from the farmer and has sold the land to the Development Authority against sale consideration. The name of the applicant was also mutated as per the admitted case of the parties. The transaction of sale and purchase prima facie is a civil dispute between the parties. It has not been shown by learned A.G.A. as to how offence under Sections 13, 13(i)a, 13(i)b, 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act would be attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case when the applicant is not a public servant. 11. In view of the above, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail in respect of offence described in para 2 of the present order. In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following NABAIL No. 7371 of 2026 3 conditions:- (i) 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 office. (ii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court concerned. (iii) In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing. (iv) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial. (v) The applicant shall maintain law and order. (vi) The applicant shall regularly remain present during the trial, and cooperate with the Court to complete the trial for the above offences. (vii) Non presence of the applicant or his counsel before the court concerned shall be construed as violation of the present order and the court concerned would be at liberty to take coercive measures in accordance with law. 12. In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant. 13. With the directions made above, the anticipatory bail application stands allowed. September 29, 2026 VMA NABAIL No. 7371 of 2026 4 (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- VISHWA MOHAN ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad