Allahabad High Court

ALI AHMADversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 30 March 2026
Bench: ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The Court held that the dispute is essentially civil in nature and therefore bail should be granted.

Summary

The High Court considered the bail application of Ali Ahmad, who was arrested in connection with a case under Sections 419, 420, 506, 386 and 365 IPC relating to alleged fraud and intimidation in a property transaction. The applicant contended that the matter was essentially a civil dispute over sale deeds and that the FIR was lodged after a two‑and‑a‑half‑year delay, making the criminal allegations untenable. The State argued that sufficient material existed to establish the applicant’s complicity. The Court examined the nature of the dispute, the pending civil suits, the delay in filing the FIR, and the applicant’s lack of flight risk. Concluding that the allegations were rooted in a civil controversy and that the applicant was not a danger to the trial, the Court granted bail subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the alleged offences under Sections 419, 420, 506, 386 and 365 IPC constitute a cognizable criminal case or are merely a civil dispute.
Whether the delay of over two years in lodging the FIR justifies denial of bail.
Whether the applicant poses a flight risk or threat to the investigation.
Whether the existence of pending civil suits influences the grant of bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 365, 386, 419, 420, 506

Subjects

bail
civil dispute
Indian Penal Code
flight risk
delayed FIR
pending civil suit
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36498 of 2025

Ali Ahmad
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashutosh Mishra, Ashwani Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ankit Srivastava, G.A., Ram Bahadur

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

Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Singh,
learned AGA for the State as also Sri Anil Srivastava, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the first
informant.

The instant bail application on behalf of the applicant seeks his
enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 199 of 2015, under Sections 419,
420, 506, 386, 365 IPC, Police Station Phaphamau, District Prayagraj,
during the pendency of the trial before the court below. The bail
application of the applicant before the court below was rejected by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Prayagraj, vide order dated
18.08.2025 and the applicant is stated to be languishing in jail since
31.07.2025.

Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the
applicant is entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very
case crime number for ulterior motives. The FIR in question was lodged
nominating the applicant and one Muzaffar Hussain with the allegation
that the first informant had purchased certain plots from Chhuttan and
Arshad through registered sale deed dated 01.12.2022 in his name. The
applicant who is associated with Gangster Mohd. Sabir of the famous
Umesh Pal Murder Case induced the first informant to sell three plots
from the plots purchased. Two plots were sold one in favour of Abhishek
BAIL No. 36498 of 2025
2

Kumar Singh for Rs. 12,20,000/- and the other plot in favour of Smt.
Pushpa Singh for Rs.8,79,000/- Both sale deeds were got executed on
30.12.2024. It is further alleged in the FIR that by showing the amount of
Rs. 5,00,000/- in the form of cheque stated to have been received at the
time of agreeing to sell the three plots an agreement to sell was got
executed of the balance land of the informant. It is alleged that when the
informant requested the applicant and co-accused to get this agreement
canceled they refused to do so.

Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the dispute
is purely civil in nature and colour of criminality has been given by the
informant. Admittedly, informant has filed suit for cancellation of the sale
deed dated 30.12.2022 executed in favour of Smt. Pushpa Singh being
Original Suit No. 379 of 2025. At the same time a suit for declaring the
agreement to sale dated 30.12.2022 as null and void being Original Suit
No. 94 of 2025. The above suits are pending as on date. it is also argued
that the allegations of forcefully getting the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-
into their bank account is utterly false and the real fact is that the co-
accused had transferred Rs. 9,50,000/- through RTGS into the account of
the first informant on 23.12.2022 and Rs. 50,000/- was given in cash. The
first informant has himself returned the said money on 27.12.2022. The
allegation of looting a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- mentioned in the agreement
to sale is utterly false.

It is next contended that co-accused Muzaffar Hussain has already been
granted protection by the Writ Court vide order dated 12.09.2015 passed
in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 16856 of 2025. The applicant has also
filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell being
Original Suit No. 339 of 2025 which is also pending. It is also submitted
that the incident is of the year 2022 but the FIR has been lodged on
17.07.2025 almost after a lapse of two and half years. The criminal
antecedents of the applicant have been duly explained in Para 39. No case
under Section 419, 420, 506, 386, 365 IPC is made out against the
applicant. The applicant undertakes to cooperate in the trial and is not a
flight risk. The applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail if the same is
granted. Hence bail has been prayed for.
BAIL No. 36498 of 2025
3

Per contra, learned AGA as also learned counsel for the first informant
have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submit that the sufficient
material has been collected by the Investigation Officer during
investigation which establishes the complicity of the applicant in the
commission of the crime but could not dispute the submissions of learned
counsel for the applicant that the dispute is essentially a civil dispute and
civil suit between the parties are pending.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court of the opinion that
the dispute alleged in the FIR is essentially a civil dispute for which the
civil litigation is still pending. In such circumstances, the Court is of the
opinion that a case for bail is made out. Accordingly, the bail application is
allowed.

Let the accused-applicant, Ali Ahmad, involved in above mentioned case
crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two
reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned, subject to the following conditions:

1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and
co-operate in the trial.

4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the
trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by
the court concerned.

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below
will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

March 31, 2026
pks

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…