Allahabad High Court

VIKRAM SINGH YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 6 May 2026
Bench: SAMEER JAIN

Holding

The applicant is entitled to bail and the bail application is allowed.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Vikram Singh Yadav, who was charged under several IPC sections for allegedly fraudulently executing a sale deed of a disputed property. The applicant argued that the dispute was essentially civil, citing a pending injunction suit and a prior order restraining demolition of the property, and that all alleged offences were triable by a magistrate. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the alleged fraud, cheating, and the applicant's prior minor criminal record. The Court noted that bail is a rule and detention an exception, and that the existence of a civil dispute does not preclude bail. It also observed that the applicant had no serious prior convictions and had been in custody for over six months. Consequently, the Court granted bail with conditions of personal bond, sureties, and compliance with procedural directives, without commenting on the merits of the underlying case.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted in a case involving alleged fraud and cheating in a property transaction pending trial.
Whether the presence of a pending civil suit and injunction renders the matter a civil dispute, affecting bail eligibility.
Whether the applicant's prior minor criminal convictions and six-month detention justify denial of bail.
Whether the fact that all offences are triable by a magistrate influences the bail decision.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 6-C
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 61(2)
Indian Penal Code — s. 318(4), 323, 336(3), 338, 340(2), 504, 506

Subjects

bail
fraud
property dispute
civil suit
preventive bail
magistrate trial
IPC
CrPC
Article 227

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44315 of 2025

Vikram Singh Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Afshan Shafaut, Diwakar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Satyam Narayan

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

1. Heard Miss. Afshan Shafaut, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Satyam Narayan, learned counsel for informant and Sri Vijay Kumar,
learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 370 of 2025, under Sections 318(4),
338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) B.N.S., Police Station Partapur, District
Meerut, during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, as per allegation
applicant fraudulently executed sale deed of the property relating to
informant and his brother in favour of his son Hareesh but entire
allegation levelled against the applicant are totally false.

4. She next submits actually property in question was having number of
co-sharers and one such co-sharer was Badlu and he transferred the
property in favour of one Ajay and thereafter Ajay executed power of
attorney in favour of applicant and thereafter applicant executed sale deed
in favour of his son Hareesh.

5. She further submits even with regard to the property in question son of
the applicant Hareesh Yadav along with two others filed a civil suit of
permanent injunction against brother of the informant and four others and
when his application under Section 6-C was dismissed then he came
before this Court in matter under Article 227 No. 15280 of 2025 and this
Court indulged into the matter and notices were issued to brother of the
informant and others and respondents were restrained from demolishing
the property in question. She placed the order dated 10.12.2025 passed by
this Court in the above application filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.

6. She next submits, prima facie, present dispute appears to be civil
BAIL No. 44315 of 2025
2

dispute and as even with regard to the property in question a civil suit for
permanent injunction is pending, therefore, there is no occasion to detain
the applicant further in the matter.

7. She further submits that even all the offences are triable by Magistrate.

8. She further argued, applicant is not having any previous criminal
history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 6.11.2025 i.e. for last
six months.

9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant
opposed the prayer for bail and submit that applicant with fraudulent
intention executed sale deed of the property in question in favour of his
son and though a suit for permanent injunction filed by the son of the
applicant is pending but merely on this ground it is not proper to release
the applicant on bail.

10. They further submit, therefore, considering the alleged fraud and
cheating committed by applicant the instant bail application may be
dismissed.

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

12. The present dispute relates to a property and as per allegation
applicant without authority by playing fraud executed sale deed of the
property in question in favour of his son but it reflects with regard to the
property in question which is situated in the same Khata No. 00164 and
149/1 son of the applicant and two others filed a civil suit for permanent
injunction against brother of the informant and two others and that civil
suit is still pending. Record further suggests that when application under
Section 6-C moved by the applicant was dismissed by the court concerned
then applicant approached this Court and this Court on 10.02.2025 was
pleased to issue notice to brother of the informant and others and
restrained them from demolishing the property in question till the next
date of listing.

13. Considering the above fact, prima facie, the argument advanced by
learned counsel for the applicant that present dispute appears to be civil
dispute cannot be ruled out at this stage.

14. Further, however, applicant apart from the present case also has a
criminal history of one another case, as informed by learned A.G.A. but
admittedly that relates to minor offences under Sections 323, 504, 506
IPC.

15. Further all offences are triable by Magistrate and applicant is in jail
for last more than six months.
BAIL No. 44315 of 2025
3

16. Further law is settled, bail is a rule while jail is an exception and bail
should not be dismissed either for preventive or punitive purpose.

17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case
discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, the instant bail application is allowed.

19. Let the applicant -Vikram Singh Yadav 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.

20. 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.

21. 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.

(Sameer Jain,J.)
May 7, 2026
Kumar Manish

Digitally signed by :-
MANISH TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…