Allahabad High Court

ARUN KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 22 April 2026
Bench: SAMEER JAIN

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Arun Kumar in a criminal case (Crime No. 628 of 2024) involving alleged forgery of a sale deed and property possession. The applicant argued that the sale deed was forged, that a rent agreement and a civil suit settlement demonstrated the dispute was essentially civil, and that he had been in custody for over six months. The State opposed bail, highlighting the applicant’s criminal history, including ten other cases and a charge under the Gangsters Act. The court noted the civil compromise but held that the applicant’s antecedents alone did not justify denial of bail, especially given the prolonged pre‑trial detention. Consequently, the court granted bail with standard conditions, without expressing any view on the merits of the underlying criminal allegations.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite allegations of forging a sale deed and pending trial.
Whether the existence of a civil compromise and settlement of the property dispute negates the need for continued detention.
Whether the applicant’s criminal history, including charges under the Gangsters Act, warrants refusal of bail.

Legislation cited

Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act (BNS) — s. 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2)
Gangsters Act
Indian Penal Code — s. 420, 463, 467, 470

Subjects

bail
forged sale deed
civil compromise
criminal antecedents
Gangsters Act
property dispute
Indian Penal Code
Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41067 of 2025

Arun Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhishek Gupta, Anand Kumar Yadav,
Subedar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Akash Rawat, Pankaj Kumar Shukla, G.A.

Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. None is present on behalf of the informant even in the revised call.

2. Heard Sri Rahul Saxena Advocate Sri Anand Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the
applicant and Sri Kunwar Tejendra Bahadur, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in
Case Crime No. 628 of 2024, under Sections 340(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3) BNS (Old
Sections 470, 420, 467, 463 IPC), Police Station Kotwali Sadabad, District Hathras,
during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as per FIR informant alongwith his
associates got executed sale deed of a property from the owners of the property but
subsequently applicant alongwith others on the basis of a forged sale deed allegedly
executed by Sharda Devi started claiming ownership over the property in question but
entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.

5. He further submitted that Sharda Devi was the real sister of Ram Charan who was
one of the owner of the property in question and she actually executed rent agreement
in favour of applicant and rent agreement executed by her has been filed alongwith the
instant bail application and this fact clearly suggests, the allegation that Sharda Devi
executed the sale deed in favour of applicant and others is totally false.

6. He further submitted that even with regard to the property in question a civil suit
was filed vide suit No. 7 of 2025 in which parties have entered into compromise and
the compromise executed between the parties has been filed at page-53 of the paper
book.

7. He further submitted that as present dispute, prima facie, appears to be civil dispute
and parties have already settled their score, therefore, there is no occasion to detain the
applicant any further in the instant matter.
BAIL No. 41067 of 2025
2

8. He further submitted that apart from the present case applicant is having criminal
history of 8 cases but his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail
application and in all the cases applicant is on bail.

9. He further submitted that applicant in jail in the present matter since 15.10.2025 i.e.
last six months.

10. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that actually
apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of ten other cases
including a case of Gangsters Act but he could not dispute the other arguments on
facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

12. However, as per allegation applicant by way of forged sale deed tried to take
possession over the property of the informant alongwith others but it appears
subsequently in civil suit parties have already entered into compromise and an
agreement has been executed between them.

13. Further, however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history
of 10 other cases including a case of Gangsters Act and criminal history of only eight
cases have been explained in the instant bail application but considering the facts of
the case in considered view of this Court, merely on this ground and on the basis of
criminal antecedents of the applicant it is not proper to withhold his bail application.

14. Further in the present matter applicant is in jail since 15.10.2025 i.e. for last more
than 6 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-Arun Kumar, 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.
BAIL No. 41067 of 2025
3

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.

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.

April 23, 2026
Ankita
(Sameer Jain,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ANKITA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…