Allahabad High Court
ANIL KUMAR SINGH YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- AVNISH SAXENA
Holding
The court held that, on a prima facie basis of a commercial dispute and the early stage of trial, the accused is entitled to bail.
Summary
The accused, Anil Kumar Singh Yadav, sought bail in a criminal case involving sections of the Indian Penal Code relating to fraud and forgery, alleging that the FIR lodged by Shashank Bajpai was false and stemmed from a commercial dispute over a sub‑tender. The applicant contended that no sub‑tender was issued and that the FIR was fabricated to exert pressure. The State opposed bail, but the court noted that the charge sheet had been filed and the trial was at a nascent stage, indicating a prima facie commercial dispute. Relying on Supreme Court dicta in Girish Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Policy Strategy for grant of bail in re, the court found no compelling reason to deny bail. Consequently, the bail application was allowed, subject to a personal bond and two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the accused is entitled to bail despite charges under sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 352, 351(2) and 351(3) of the Indian Penal Code.
- Whether the FIR constitutes a false and frivolous complaint arising from a commercial dispute.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352
Subjects
- bail
- false FIR
- commercial dispute
- Indian Penal Code
- Supreme Court precedent
- trial stage
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44926 of 2025
Anil Kumar Singh Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aushim Luthra, Pranav Tiwary, Rahul
Saxena, Shikher Trivedi, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ram Prakash Singh, G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Heard Sri Rahul Saxena, learned counsel for accused applicant and
learned A.G.A. for State.
1A. This is time fixed matter. None appeared for the informant.
1B. On the previous date i.e. 16.09.2026, this Court has made following
observation, which is reiterated underneath :-
"1. Sri Rahul Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant and
learned AGA for the State are present.
2. None appeared for the informant. On the last occasion, this
court has fixed the matter for today at 2:00 p.m. There is illness
slip of other side.
3. List on 29.09.2026 at 2:00 p.m."
2. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant/ accused-
Anil Kumar Singh Yadav to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 430 of
2025, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 352, 351(2) and 351(3)
BNS, P.S.- Civil Lines, District- Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial.
3. It is the contention of learned counsel for applicant that false and frivolous
FIR has been lodged belatedly against the accused/applicant and his wife on
17.10.2025 by the informant Shashank Bajpai with the allegation that the
accused persons had cheated the firm of informant's wife in the name of
Prisha Enterprises. It is further contended that the allegation in the FIR is
pertaining to the occurrence from 05.07.2023 to 01.09.2024. In this period it
BAIL No. 44926 of 2025
2
is alleged that the accused/applicant has issued as sub tender to the firm of
informant's wife for the work of renovation carried out in the city of
Prayagraj, which the accused has obtained from the Prayagraj Development
Authority. It is the contention of learned counsel that there was never a sub
tender issued to the Prisha Enterprises. It is the devolution of work, which
has been carried out through Prisha Enterprises. There was no letter issued
by the accused/applicant either self or through his company allocating sub
tender. It is further contended that there was no forged letter issued but it
was manufactured by the informant for the purpose of putting pressure on
the applicant. Further submits that it was a purely commercial transaction
wherein the FIR has been lodged and charge sheet is submitted. The
applicant is having criminal history of two cases, wherein in one case final
report is submitted and in one case stay order is in operation from the Writ
Court. The accused applicant is languishing in jail since 31.10.2025. The
trial is at nascent stage. He seeks to be enlarged on bail.
4. Learned A.G.A. for State and learned counsel for the informant have
opposed the prayer for bail.
5. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Considering prima facie that there is commercial dispute between the
parties in respect to the issuance of sub tender or not.The charge sheet is
submitted and the trial is at nascent stage, the accused/applicant is entitled to
be released on bail.
7. Hence, without touching merit of the case, the bail application is allowed.
8. The accused/applicant 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 court concerned in view of observation made by the Supreme
Court in its dictums of Girish Gandhi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2024)
10 SCC 674] and Policy Strategy for grant of bail in re [(2024)10SCC
685].
9. The accused-applicant shall cooperate in judicial process for fair and
speedy disposal.
September 29, 2026
Abhishek Sri.
(Avnish Saxena,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK RANJAN SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…