Allahabad High Court
SUNDAR KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The Court held that the applicant is the principal offender and therefore bail is not warranted.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sundar Kumar, who was arrested on allegations of forging a sale deed and related documents to illegally transfer land in Baghpat. The applicant contended that he was innocent, that the case was essentially a civil dispute given a criminal colour, and that his arrest violated Section 47 of the B.N.S.S. and Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The State argued that the applicant was the principal offender, having executed the forged deed and received the sale proceeds in his bank account. The Court examined the prima facie evidence, noting that the sale deed was executed using fabricated documents and that the gravity of the offences under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of the B.N.S. was substantial. Relying on the facts and the seriousness of the alleged crimes, the Court concluded that no case for bail existed. Consequently, the bail application was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the alleged forgery and impersonation offences.
- Whether the arrest and detention violated procedural safeguards under Section 47 of the B.N.S.S. and Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
- Whether the case, being essentially civil in nature, warrants criminal prosecution and bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2)
- B.N.S.S. — s. 47
- Constitution of India — s. Article 22(1)
Subjects
- bail
- forgery
- sale deed
- impersonation
- criminal procedure
- prima facie
- Section 47
- Article 22
- gravity of offence
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4588 of 2026
Sundar Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akash Tyagi, Ambleshwar Pandey,
Anuj Srivastava, Devaang Savla, Neha
Tyagi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.
Heard Shri Devaang Savla, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri
Yagyavalk Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.
The instant bail application seeks enlargement on bail of the applicant,
Sundar Kumar, in Case Crime No. 562 of 2025, under Sections 318(4),
338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of B.N.S., Police Station-Baghpat, District
Baghpat during the pendency of the trial before the court below.
The bail application of the applicant before the court below was rejected
by learned Sessions Judge, Baghpat vide order dated 28.11.2025 and the
applicant is languishing in jail since 03.10.2025.
Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argues that the applicant is
entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case for
ulterior motives. The F.I.R. giving rise to the case crime number in
question has been lodged nominating as many as seven persons including
the applicant herein with allegation that the applicant executed a forged
sale deed of Khasra Plot No. 111, situate at village Sisana Bangar, District
Baghpat in favour of the opposite party no. 2 and two others persons
namely Renu Gupta D/o Rajiv Gupta and Harish Sharma s/o Vijay Pal
Sharma pretending himself to be the legal heir of one Anil Kumar
Agarwal s/o Data Ram by forging legal heir certificate, Adhar Card and
Death Certificate.
BAIL No. 4588 of 2026
2
Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that there is
inordinate and unexplained delay of about four months, which casts a
shadow of doubt over the entire prosecution story. The main accused is
Ravindra Kumar. The dispute in the present case is purely civil in nature
and has been given a criminal colour. No offence u/s 318(4), 338, 336(3),
340(2), 61(2) of B.N.S. is made out against the applicant. It is next argued
that charge-sheet against the applicant has already been filed on
25.11.2025, while the investigation against co-accused Mahendra @
Munendra s/o Bheem Singh, Vikas @ Mayank s/o Azad, Ravindra s/o
Akram, Pramod s/o Raishpal and Halka Lekhpal, is still going on. It is
next argued that the applicant has been illegally arrested by the police in
contravention and violation of the provisions of Section 47 of B.N.S.S. as
well as Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Reliance has been
placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in Vihaan Kumar Vs. State
of Haryana and Others, reported in 2025 (5) SCC 799. It is accordingly
argued that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail plea by
submitting that applicant is guilty of acting as an imposter claiming to be
the heir and legal representative of Anil Kumar Agarwal, whose land has
been illegally sold. Investigation reveals that the sale proceeds were
credited into the HDFC Bank account of the applicant. It has been
submitted that bail plea of the applicant warrants outright rejection.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have given my respective
consideration to the submissions advanced. I find that prima facie the
applicant appears to be the principal offender as the sale deed has been
executed by him on the strength of forged and fabricated documents.
In the ultimate conclusion, considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, gravity of the offence, severity of punishment, in my opinion, no case
for bail is made out.
Accordingly, the bail application is hereby rejected.
(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)
April 1, 2026
Vibha Singh
Digitally signed by :-
VIBHA SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…