HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5692 of 2026 Court No. - 81 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Anil Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Padmakar Pandey and Sri Anurag Bajpayee, learned counsel appearing for the accused-applicant, Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri G. S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Santosh Kumar Rai and Sri A. Z. Khan, learned counsel for informant and perused the material available on record. 2. This bail application has been moved on behalf of the accused-applicant, for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 126 of 2025, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 447, 506, 452, 384, 307 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Gwaltoli, District Kanpur Nagar, during pendency of trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has falsely been implicated in this case, as much as several F. I. Rs. have been lodged against the accused in the year, 2025 for no reason. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the property in dispute, which is stated to be Waqf property was given to one Hafiz Ali in the year, 1911 on lease for a period of 99 years, therefore any right whatsoever, extinguished in the year, 2010, the complainant can not claim his rights beyond the year, 2010. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that, there is no trespass made out on behalf of the applicant and all allegations constitute civil wrong, for which civil litigation is pending. Th allegations of injury alleged to have been inflicted at the instance of the applicant is just to Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anurag Vajpeyi, Gaurav Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : A.Z. Khan, Akshay Raghuvanshi, Bijendra Kumar Singh, G.A., Santosh Kumar Rai, Somya Chaturvedi Dr Akhilesh Dubey .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) defame him and tarnish his image and usurp his property. He further submitted that, as far as demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been stated, there is no evidence or any delivery of the same has ever been effected by any party. 6. Learned counsel has next submitted that, if some incident of colliding the truck with the car of the complainant / informant has taken place, wherein the complainant / informant sustained injuries, the matter was not taken to legal course in the area, but a false F. I. R. has been lodged at Kanpur Nagar. He has further submitted that, as far as the power of attorney in question is concerned, the same is a valid document and the said power of attorney was executed in respect of the property in dispute. It is further submitted that, so far as the transaction of money from one account to other account has taken place, i. e. transfer of money between the family members, the same is not the point of dispute or allegations, does not form the part of any allegation made in the instant F. I. R. The allegation of the complainant, that the applicant forcibly entered the Waqf property and obtained signature of the complainant under duress, threat and seized his Aadhar Car, are false and baseless. The allegation, that co-accused Raj Kumar Shukla in connivance with his associates has alleged to have fraudulently fabricated the document, such as, the power of attorney or any lease-deed through coercion and intimidation, in order to take the Waqf property in possession, are totally false and baseless. It is also false and baseless, that the power of attorney was executed under duress with the executant being coerced and confined to affix their signatures on the said documents. The allegation, that the power of attorney given by Munni Devi and Vivek Kumar Gupta is not in accordance with law and the said lease has been executed after the demise of Munni Devi, is totally false and baseless. It is also denied that Vivek Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Kedar Nath Gupta was ever threatened by the applicant or his associates. It is also wrong and false that the lease-dated 9.10.2023 executed by co-accused Raj Kumar Shukhla was obtained by force or duress. As far as the allegation, that the power of attorney was executed after demise of Munni Devi is the matter of investigation. However, the said power of attorney has been executed in accordance with law. It is next submitted, that all the allegations pertaining to the possession of the said Waqf property are subjudice before the competent Waqf Tribunal in Application No. 05 of 2025 filed under Section 83 (2) of Waqf Act, 1995 and submitted that, the said first information report has been lodged after inordinate delay and the delay has not been explained by the complainant. The allegation that the co-accused Saumya Dubey was appointed as an Arbitrator illegally and arbitrarily is also false and baseless, as much as the same aspect was mentioned in the lease-deed itself, which is a matter of trial and evidence. BAIL No. 5692 of 2026 2 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is an activist and was working for the said property and a park not to be grabbed by the Kanpur Development Authority. The said park is different from the Waqf property in dispute. 8. Learned counsel also submitted that, as far as the co-accused No. 2, Raj Kumar Shukla is concerned, he has been granted interim anticipatory bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.1.2026, passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 482 BNSS No. 420 of 2026 and another co-accused Sarwesh Dubey has been granted interim anticipatory bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.1.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 482 BNSS No. 806 of 2026 and the proceedings in respect of Sarwesh Dubey and co-accused Saumya Dubey has been granted anticipatory bail by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 8.1.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 482 BNSS No. 10383 of 2025, co- accused Jai Prakash Dubey has been granted interim anticipatory bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.2.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 482 BNSS No. 1716 of 2026 and co-accused Sabhajeet Mishra has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 23.4.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 41111 of 2025 and proceedings in respect of Saumya Dubey and Sarwesh Dubey have been stayed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2164 of 2026 and Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 15683 of 2026 vide orders dated 16.2.2026 and 27.4.2026 respectively. 9. On the other hand, Sri G. S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate submitted that Akhilesh Dubey (applicant) is hand in gloves with all the co- accused persons and is mastermind of the gang and is the main beneficiary of the transactions of his gang. Power of Attorney has been obtained in favour of Raj Kumar Shukla by extending threat and at gunpoint, putting the auction purchasers in fear of death by Akhilesh Dubey and his gang. He has executed various lease deeds in violation of the order of the Courts and has even used a power of Attorney of a dead person. JP Dubey (a relative of Akhilesh Dubey and Sarvesh Dubey) has executed a sublease in favour of M/s Canary Apparels, through its director Sarvesh Dubey (brother of Akhilesh Dubey), who in turn executed a lease in favour of Renu Agarwal. Subsequently a fresh lease deed is executed in his favour and Saumya Dubey (daughter of Akhilesh Dubey) and she is made the arbitrator and her decision will be final in case of dispute, which is illegal in itself. Investigating Officer has collected sufficient material during the course of fair and impartial investigation, that Canary Apparels, Unisex Salon, Marriage Hall (Aagman) BAIL No. 5692 of 2026 3 and other business are being run on the disputed land, and Akhilesh Dubey is obtaining and getting monetary benefits of the same, and he is the main beneficiary and power of attorney was obtained by extending threats, at gun point and auction purchasers were put in fear of death. Lease was executed with Waqf land even after 2010, when auction purchaser had tenancy right only upto 2010 and one executants namely Munni Devi had died in the year 2015 and power of attorney prepared in the year, 2016 is also being used in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The statements of Amrish @ Bunty Srivastava and Shiv Kishore Tiwari recorded under section 180 of B.N.S.S. reveal the entire facts, in support of the prosecution. 10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of informant has submitted Jaipraksh Dubey executed a sublease on 25.05.2010, in favour of M/s. Canary Aparels Private Limited, through its Director, Sarvesh Dubey, a brother of Akhilesh Dubey for a period of 29 years, on a rent of Rs. 50,000/- per year. Sarvesh Dubey, acting as the authorised signatory of M/s. Canary Apparels Private Limited executed a lease dated 02.02.2012 in favour of Renu Agrawal, wife of Sharad Agrawal for a period of 11 months commencing 15.03.2012 and ending 14.03.2013 on a monthly rent of Rs. 52,500/-. The said transaction is an illegal transaction, not authorized by law, for the reason, that once the lease stands expired, then the same cannot be extended. 11. It is further submitted on behalf of the informant, that quite apart from the civil dispute that arises between the parties, there is a definitive criminal angle relating to usurpation of property by the applicant and co-accused persons acting in concert, which, in present times, has become a serious malady, affecting lawful transactions of property in the society. A crime committed in relation to transactions, relating to property on the same facts is quite distinct and different from the civil cause of action, that is involved. The civil cause of action can be pursued to its logical conclusion, but that does not derogate from the crime, if any, that has been committed in relation to those transactions by one party or the other from being reported by the aggrieved and investigated by the Police to take the matter to its own logical conclusion. 12. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that three co- accused have been granted interim anticipatory bail, one co-accused, BAIL No. 5692 of 2026 4 namely, Saumya Dubey has been granted anticipatory bail, one co-accused namely, Sabhajeet Mishra has been granted regular bail by this Court as well as proceedings in respect of co-accused Saumya Dubey and Sarwesh Dubey have been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court is of the considered view that the applicant has made out a case for being enlarged on bail. The instant bail application is allowed. 13. Let the applicant Dr. Akhilesh Dubey 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. (iv) The applicant shall not leave the country, without the permission of the Court and shall deposit his passport before the concerned trial Court. 14. 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. 15. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted. May 5, 2026 HR BAIL No. 5692 of 2026 5 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad