HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5686 of 2026 Court No. - 66 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record. 1. Heard Sri Piyush Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Akash Pandey, learned counsel for the victim (wife of brother of the alleged Jeevan Lal Mishra, the alleged property owner) and Sri Rajiv Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.340 of 2024, under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) BNS, Police Station Sipri Bazar, District Jhansi, during pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, FIR of the present case was lodged by the applicant himself against ten persons with the allegation that they by playing fraud executed a fake sale deed of the property of the applicant but during investigation applicant has been made accused in the present matter on the ground that actually, he was not the Jeevan Lal and he, on the basis of fake document, claimed himself to be Jeevan Lal. 4. He further submits, entire allegations made against the applicant are Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Piyush Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Akash Pandey, Jay Prakash Singh Yadav, G.A. Anand Kushwaha .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) totally false and actually, applicant is Jeevan Lal and he also filed the mutation case before the competent authority and his name has also been mutated in the alleged disputed property and thereafter, he executed the sale deed of the property. 5. He further submits, however, wife of the brother of the alleged Jeevan Lal claimed that applicant by committing fraud executed the sale deed of the property of Jeevan Lal and in this regard, she also filed a civil suit for cancellation of the sale deed. 6. He next submits, prima facie present dispute appears to be a civil dispute whether sale deed executed by applicant was forged or not, can only be ascertained by competent civil court. 7. He further submits, all the alleged offences are tribal by Magistrate and applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 29.11.2025 i.e. for last more than five months. 8. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the victim opposed the prayer for bail and submit, applicant by playing fraud tried to dispose of the property of Jeevan Lal and he is not Jeevan Lal Mishra and thus, alleged offence committed by him are quite serious however, they could not dispute the fact that FIR of the present case was lodged by applicant himself. 9. They also could not dispute the fact that with regard to the sale deed executed by applicant civil suit is pending for cancellation of the same. 10. They also could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail for last more than five months and all the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 12. However, as per allegation, applicant claimed himself as Jeevan Lal Mishra and on the basis of fake document executed number of sale deed of the property of Jeevanlal Mishra but it reflects, FIR of the present case BAIL No. 5686 of 2026 2 was himself lodged by the applicant and subsequently, he has been made accused in the present matter. 13. Further, it is also the admitted fact that with regard to the alleged sale deed executed by applicant, civil suits are pending for cancellation of the same and considering the facts of the case, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that whether alleged sale deed executed by the applicant was forged or not can only be determined by the competent civil court. 14. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and all the alleged offences at triable by Magistrate and in the present matter he is in jail for last more than five months. 15. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 16. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 17. Let the applicant - Anand Kushwaha be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity. 18. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant. BAIL No. 5686 of 2026 3 19. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. May 5, 2026 S.A. BAIL No. 5686 of 2026 4 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- SALMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad