Allahabad High Court

DHARMENDER SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 8 April 2026
Bench: ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The court held that the applicant’s repeated violation of bail conditions and lack of clean hands justified the denial of bail.

Summary

The High Court considered the bail application of Dharmender Singh, who is charged under sections 420, 406, 504, 467, 468 and 471 IPC for allegedly cheating an informant in a property transaction. The applicant claimed the dispute was purely civil and that he had complied with earlier anticipatory bail conditions, but the court noted his repeated failure to appear, violation of bail conditions, and cancellation of earlier bail orders upheld by the Supreme Court. The court observed that the applicant had repeatedly flouted commitments, misused the legal process, and that the criminal allegations were substantiated by the charge sheet. Relying on precedent that criminal breach of trust requires fraudulent intent, the court found the facts sufficient to sustain the charges. Consequently, the court denied the bail application, finding no clean hands or sufficient assurance of cooperation.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite prior anticipatory bail and subsequent violations of bail conditions.
Whether the alleged civil dispute can be characterized as a criminal offence under sections 406 and 420 IPC.
Whether the applicant’s repeated non‑compliance with court orders justifies denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482, 82, 83
Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504

Subjects

bail
anticipatory bail
cheating
criminal breach of trust
non‑bailable warrant
Section 482 CrPC
Section 420 IPC
civil dispute
Supreme Court precedent

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36491 of 2025

Dharmender Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arvind Giri, Jitendra Kumar Shishodia,
Krishna Gautam, Mohd. Afzal, Surendra
Kumar Chaubey, Swati Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vijit Saxena

Court No. - 68
HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard Shri S.K. Chaubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Rajesh
Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Vijit Saxena, learned
counsel for the informant and perused the record.

The instant bail application on behalf of the applicant, Dharmender Singh,
has been filed seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 884 of
2019, u/s 420, 406, 504, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Bisrakh,
District Gautam Buddha Nagar during the pendency of the trial before the
trial court. The bail application of the applicant before the trial court was
rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd /Special Judge
SC/ST Act, Gautam Buddha Nagar vide order dated 16.09.2025 and the
applicant is stated to be languishing in jail since 05.08.2025.

Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that applicant is
entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case for
ulterior motives. The applicant is named in the F.I.R., which has been
lodged with the allegation that the applicant had sold a flat to the
informant on 12.09.2016. The informant and applicant became acquainted
to each other. In November, 2017, the applicant borrowed a sum of Rs.
15,00,000/- and Rs. 12,00,000/- was credited into the bank account of the
applicant and Rs. 3,00,000/- was given in cash. The applicant assured the
informant of repayment of the sum borrowed at the earliest. The applicant
was constructing shops over plot nos. 62, 63 and 64 of Khasra No. 204 M.
The applicant offered the informant one shop, if he booked one shop for
Rs. 7,50,000/-. The informant is stated to have booked two shops on
BAIL No. 36491 of 2025
2

05.01.2018 and paid the amount through cheque. The F.I.R. further
alleges that when the informant asked for repayment of Rs. 15,00,000/- he
was handed over a cheque for Rs. 15,00,000/- (Cheque No. 627216 dated
07.07.2018), which however was got dishonoured when presented for
payment. The applicant again gave assurance to the informant that the
cheque would be honoured, if presented it again, but when presented
again the same was again dishonoured. The applicant refused to repay the
amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- lacs but he was ready to sell shop no. 04,
situate over plot no. 59, 60 & 61 for a consideration of Rs. 12,50,000/-
which amount would be adjusted against the borrowed money. The
applicant is stated to have executed sale deed of the shop no. 4 in favour
of the informant on 15.09.2018. The remaining Rs. 3,00,000/- was
assured to be given to the informant. Later on, it was discovered that the
applicant had already executed the sale deed of shop no. 4 on 02.02.2018
in favour of NKV Developers through its proprietor Rajiv Kumar. It was
stated in the F.I.R. that the applicant had cheated the informant for a sum
of Rs. 8,00,000/- in all.

It has been argued that the applicant was granted anticipatory bail vide
order dated 07.02.2020 during investigation and till conclusion of trial
passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 502 of 2020,
which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 6 to the bail
application. However, the applicant could not appear and co-operate in
the trial and he was arrested by issuance of N.B.W. on 08.08.2022. The
applicant was released on bail vide order dated 11.08.2022. The bail
granted to the applicant was cancelled vide order dated 26.04.2023. The
challenge to the aforesaid bail cancellation order also failed and the
applicant was arrested on 05.08.2025 and is incarcerated in jail since then.

Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the dispute
in the present case is purely civil which has been given a criminal colour.
No offence of cheating or forgery is made out against the applicant. It is
also argued that the applicant in order to settle the dispute with the
informant executed a sale deed of Flat No. 104 situate in Shahbari Noida,
Flat No. 204 and Plots Nos. 59, 60 and 61 in lieu of Rs. 12,50,000/-.
Thereafter the applicant has executed sale deed in favour of the sister-in-
law, Smt. Renu, in lieu of Rs. 15 Lacs advanced to the informant and
BAIL No. 36491 of 2025
3

nothing further remained due from the applicant. It is also argued that
there is no criminality attached to the alleged transactions and no offence
under sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. can be said to be made out against the
applicant. It is submitted that infact both sections 406 and 420 I.P.C.
cannot coexist, simultaneously, in the same set of facts. It is argued that
every act of breach of trust may not result in a penal offence of criminal
breach of trust unless there is evidence of manipulating act of fraudulent
misappropriation, which is clearly lacking in the present case. An act of
breach of trust involves a civil wrong in respect of which the person may
seek his remedy for damages in civil courts. Reliance is placed upon the
decision of the Apex Courts rendered in the case of Delhi Race Club
(1940) Ltd. & Other Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another decided on
23.08.2024 and reported in 2024 (10) SCC 690.

It is next argued that the charge sheet against the applicant has already
been filed on 23.02.2020 and cognizance of the same has already been
taken by the court concerned on 15.07.2020. The custodial interrogation
of the applicant is no longer required. The criminal antecedents of the
applicant have been duly explained and the applicant undertakes to co-
operate in the trial and shall not misuse the liberty of bail if bail is
granted. Hence, bail is prayed for.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as also Shri Vijit Saxena, learned counsel for
the informant have vehemently opposed the bail plea by submitting that
the applicant has not approached this Court with clean hands. The
applicant was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 07.02.2020 till
conclusion of trial on certain conditions. The conditions were flouted by
the applicant, charge-sheet was submitted. Applicant deliberately and
intentionally avoided the proceedings and never appeared before the
court. Consequently, non-bailable warrant was issued against the
applicant on 07.07.2022. This court in an application under section 482
Cr.P.C. No. 21193 of 2022 refused to quash the non-bailable warrant
issued against the applicant vide order dated 26.07.2022, however
directed the applicant to surrender before the Court below within two
weeks and apply for bail which would be considered in accordance with
law. The applicant appeared and was taken into custody and released on
bail on 11.08.2022 on the basis of a compromise entered between the
BAIL No. 36491 of 2025
4

parties. The terms of the compromise were also not complied with by the
applicant and the bail granted stood cancelled vide order dated
26.04.2023. The order dated 26.04.2023 was assailed by the applicant by
means of application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 18517 of 2023, which was
rejected vide order dated 14.06.2023. The order dated 14.06.2023 was
assailed in SLP (Criminal) No. 7985 of 2023 and the same was dismissed
by the Apex Court vide order dated 12.10.2023 thereby affirming the bail
cancellation order observing that "the applicant is repeatedly flouting his
commitments made to the Court and obligations imposed by him by the
court. In these circumstances, this Court sees no reasons to disturb the
impugned order dated 14.06.2023 in the application u/s 482 No. 18517 of
2023. The SLP is accordingly dismissed." It is next contended that the
applicant instead of surrendering before the court preferred yet another
application under section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 28140 of 2023 and got the
matter referred to mediation center. The mediation proceedings failed at
the instance of the applicant. Ultimately, the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
No. 28140 of 2023 was dismissed by imposing cost upon the applicant to
the tune of Rs. 40,000/-. It is further contended by learned counsel for the
informant that the applicant choose not to appear before the Court and the
court was compelled to resort to proceedings u/s 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. to
ensure the presence. Ultimately, the applicant was arrested and put behind
bars on 05.08.2023. It is also submitted that the applicant knowingly has
executed sale deeds in favour of the informant and his sister-in-law of the
property which has already been acquired by Greater Noida, Industrial
Development Authority and status quo order is operating thereon. The
applicant is guilty of committing offence as alleged and his bail
application warrants outright rejection.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking note of all the
above, the court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)
April 9, 2026
Vibha Singh

Digitally signed by :-
VIBHA SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…