Allahabad High Court

ANAND KUSHWAHAversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 4 May 2026
Bench: SAMEER JAIN

Holding

The court held that since the alleged forgery is a civil issue to be decided by a competent civil court and the offences are bailable, the applicant is entitled to bail.

Summary

The applicant, Anand Kushwaha, filed a bail application in a criminal case (Crime No. 340 of 2024) alleging fraud and forgery related to a sale deed of property allegedly belonging to Jeevan Lal Mishra. He contended that the FIR was lodged by him, the allegations of forgery are false, and that the dispute over the sale deed is essentially a civil matter pending before a civil court. The State opposed bail, arguing the applicant fraudulently claimed to be Jeevan Lal and executed the sale deed using fake documents, though they could not dispute his lack of prior criminal record. The court observed that the question of whether the sale deed was forged is for a civil court, the offences are triable by a magistrate, and the applicant has been in custody for over five months without any prior convictions. Consequently, the court granted bail with conditions, without expressing any view on the merits of the underlying case.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be granted in a case involving alleged fraud and forgery of a sale deed pending a civil suit.
Whether the alleged forgery is a civil issue that should be decided by a civil court, affecting the grant of bail.
Whether the applicant's lack of prior criminal history and prolonged pre‑trial detention justify bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2)

Subjects

bail
fraud
forgery
sale deed
civil suit
pre‑trial detention
magistrate trial
Indian Penal Code
Section 319
Section 318
Section 336
Section 338
Section 340
no prior criminal record

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5686 of 2026

Anand Kushwaha
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Piyush Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Akash Pandey, Jay Prakash Singh
Yadav, G.A.

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

1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on
record.

1. Heard Sri Piyush Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Akash Pandey, learned counsel for the victim (wife of brother of the
alleged Jeevan Lal Mishra, the alleged property owner) and Sri Rajiv
Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No.340 of 2024, under Sections 319(2),
318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) BNS, Police Station Sipri Bazar, District
Jhansi, during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, FIR of the present case was
lodged by the applicant himself against ten persons with the allegation
that they by playing fraud executed a fake sale deed of the property of the
applicant but during investigation applicant has been made accused in the
present matter on the ground that actually, he was not the Jeevan Lal and
he, on the basis of fake document, claimed himself to be Jeevan Lal.

4. He further submits, entire allegations made against the applicant are
BAIL No. 5686 of 2026
2

totally false and actually, applicant is Jeevan Lal and he also filed the
mutation case before the competent authority and his name has also been
mutated in the alleged disputed property and thereafter, he executed the
sale deed of the property.

5. He further submits, however, wife of the brother of the alleged Jeevan
Lal claimed that applicant by committing fraud executed the sale deed of
the property of Jeevan Lal and in this regard, she also filed a civil suit for
cancellation of the sale deed.

6. He next submits, prima facie present dispute appears to be a civil
dispute whether sale deed executed by applicant was forged or not, can
only be ascertained by competent civil court.

7. He further submits, all the alleged offences are tribal by Magistrate and
applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present
matter he is in jail since 29.11.2025 i.e. for last more than five months.

8. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the victim
opposed the prayer for bail and submit, applicant by playing fraud tried to
dispose of the property of Jeevan Lal and he is not Jeevan Lal Mishra and
thus, alleged offence committed by him are quite serious however, they
could not dispute the fact that FIR of the present case was lodged by
applicant himself.

9. They also could not dispute the fact that with regard to the sale deed
executed by applicant civil suit is pending for cancellation of the same.

10. They also could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any
previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail for last
more than five months and all the alleged offences are triable by
Magistrate.

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

12. However, as per allegation, applicant claimed himself as Jeevan Lal
Mishra and on the basis of fake document executed number of sale deed
of the property of Jeevanlal Mishra but it reflects, FIR of the present case
BAIL No. 5686 of 2026
3

was himself lodged by the applicant and subsequently, he has been made
accused in the present matter.

13. Further, it is also the admitted fact that with regard to the alleged sale
deed executed by applicant, civil suits are pending for cancellation of the
same and considering the facts of the case, this Court finds merit in the
argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that whether
alleged sale deed executed by the applicant was forged or not can only be
determined by the competent civil court.

14. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and all
the alleged offences at triable by Magistrate and in the present matter he
is in jail for last more than five 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 - Anand Kushwaha 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.

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.
BAIL No. 5686 of 2026
4

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.

(Sameer Jain,J.)
May 5, 2026
S.A.

Digitally signed by :-
SALMAN AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…