Allahabad High Court
TITUversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
Because the allegations prima facie constitute a civil dispute and the applicant has no criminal record, bail was granted.
Summary
The applicant, Titu, was arrested in connection with a property‑related case (Crime No. 570 of 2025) alleging fraud under several IPC sections. He contended that the sale deed in question was validly executed in his favour in 2019 and that the subsequent sale to a third party, Neha Sharma, was a civil dispute, not a criminal fraud. The applicant also highlighted his clean criminal record and that he had been in custody only since 11 March 2026. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the applicant’s factual submissions. The court observed that the allegations appeared to be of a civil nature, the applicant had no prior criminal history, and therefore he was entitled to bail, subject to standard conditions. Consequently, the bail application was allowed without expressing any view on the merits of the underlying case.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted when the alleged offence appears to be a civil dispute.
- Whether the applicant’s lack of criminal history and the nature of the allegations justify bail.
- Whether the pending civil suit by the subsequent purchaser affects the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 351(3), 352
Subjects
- bail
- civil dispute
- property fraud
- sale deed
- IPC sections
- high court
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14295 of 2026
Titu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bharat Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Heard Sri Bharat Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S. B. Maurya,
learned AGA for the State-respondent.
2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in
Case Crime No. 570 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 352, 351(3)
BNS, Police Station Jait, District Mathura, during pendency of the trial in the court
below.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as per allegation made in the FIR,
on 7.12.2024 informant got executed a sale deed from Manmohan Kumar Garg and
Arun Kumar Garg and thereafter he came to know that applicant and co-accused
Kamal Singh fraudulently executed the sale deed of the same property to one Neha
Sharma but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.
4. He further submitted that actually in the year 2019 Manmohan Kumar Garg
executed a sale deed in favour of applicant and co-accused Kamal Singh and the
alleged sale deed is annexed alongwith the instant bail application.
5. He further submitted that after the sale deed executed by Manmohan Kumar Garg ,
the owner of the property in favour of the applicant and co-accused Kamal Singh they
executed the sale deed in favour of Neha Sharma and therefore, it cannot be said that
applicant committed any fraud.
6. He further submitted that even present dispute, prima facie, appears to be civil
dispute and even subsequently purchaser Neha Sharma has filed civil suit against the
informant and against Manmohan Kumar Garg and Arun Kumar Garg who sold the
property in question to the informant and civil suit filed by her is still pending.
7. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in
the present matter since 11.3.2026.
8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the
BAIL No. 14295 of 2026
2
arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
10. Considering the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant, prima facie, it
appears to be a case of civil nature and a civil case is also pending filed by subsequent
purchaser Neha Sharma against informant and others and applicant is having no
criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 11.3.2026 therefore, in my
view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
11. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant
bail application is allowed.
12. Let the applicant-Titu, 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.
13. 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.
14. 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 6, 2026
Ankita
(Sameer Jain,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANKITA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…