DR AKHILESH DUBEYversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

     CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5692 of 2026

Dr Akhilesh Dubey
                                                            .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus
State of U.P.
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Anurag Vajpeyi, Gaurav Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : A.Z. Khan, Akshay Raghuvanshi,
                                Bijendra Kumar Singh, G.A., Santosh
                                Kumar Rai, Somya Chaturvedi

Court No. - 81
                     HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.


1. Heard Sri Anil Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri
Padmakar Pandey and Sri Anurag Bajpayee, learned counsel appearing for
the accused-applicant, Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned A.G.A. for the State and
Sri G. S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Santosh
Kumar Rai and Sri A. Z. Khan, learned counsel for informant and perused
the material available on record.

2. This bail application has been moved on behalf of the accused-applicant,
for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 126 of 2025, under Sections 420, 467,
468, 471, 447, 506, 452, 384, 307 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Gwaltoli,
District Kanpur Nagar, during pendency of trial.


3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has
falsely been implicated in this case, as much as several F. I. Rs. have been
lodged against the accused in the year, 2025 for no reason.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the property in
dispute, which is stated to be Waqf property was given to one Hafiz Ali in
the year, 1911 on lease for a period of 99 years, therefore any right
whatsoever, extinguished in the year, 2010, the complainant can not claim
his rights beyond the year, 2010.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that, there is no
trespass made out on behalf of the applicant and all allegations constitute
civil wrong, for which civil litigation is pending. Th allegations of injury
alleged to have been inflicted at the instance of the applicant is just to
                                                           BAIL No. 5692 of 2026
                                 2

defame him and tarnish his image and usurp his property. He further
submitted that, as far as demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been stated, there is
no evidence or any delivery of the same has ever been effected by any party.

6. Learned counsel has next submitted that, if some incident of colliding the
truck with the car of the complainant / informant has taken place, wherein
the complainant / informant sustained injuries, the matter was not taken to
legal course in the area, but a false F. I. R. has been lodged at Kanpur Nagar.
He has further submitted that, as far as the power of attorney in question is
concerned, the same is a valid document and the said power of attorney was
executed in respect of the property in dispute. It is further submitted that, so
far as the transaction of money from one account to other account has taken
place, i. e. transfer of money between the family members, the same is not
the point of dispute or allegations, does not form the part of any allegation
made in the instant F. I. R. The allegation of the complainant, that the
applicant forcibly entered the Waqf property and obtained signature of the
complainant under duress, threat and seized his Aadhar Car, are false and
baseless. The allegation, that co-accused Raj Kumar Shukla in connivance
with his associates has alleged to have fraudulently fabricated the document,
such as, the power of attorney or any lease-deed through coercion and
intimidation, in order to take the Waqf property in possession, are totally
false and baseless. It is also false and baseless, that the power of attorney
was executed under duress with the executant being coerced and confined to
affix their signatures on the said documents. The allegation, that the power
of attorney given by Munni Devi and Vivek Kumar Gupta is not in
accordance with law and the said lease has been executed after the demise of
Munni Devi, is totally false and baseless. It is also denied that Vivek Kumar
Gupta, S/o Late Kedar Nath Gupta was ever threatened by the applicant or
his associates. It is also wrong and false that the lease-dated 9.10.2023
executed by co-accused Raj Kumar Shukhla was obtained by force or
duress. As far as the allegation, that the power of attorney was executed after
demise of Munni Devi is the matter of investigation. However, the said
power of attorney has been executed in accordance with law. It is next
submitted, that all the allegations pertaining to the possession of the said
Waqf property are subjudice before the competent Waqf Tribunal in
Application No. 05 of 2025 filed under Section 83 (2) of Waqf Act, 1995
and submitted that, the said first information report has been lodged after
inordinate delay and the delay has not been explained by the complainant.
The allegation that the co-accused Saumya Dubey was appointed as an
Arbitrator illegally and arbitrarily is also false and baseless, as much as the
same aspect was mentioned in the lease-deed itself, which is a matter of trial
and evidence.
                                                             BAIL No. 5692 of 2026
                                  3

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is an
activist and was working for the said property and a park not to be grabbed
by the Kanpur Development Authority. The said park is different from the
Waqf property in dispute.

8. Learned counsel also submitted that, as far as the co-accused No. 2, Raj
Kumar Shukla is concerned, he has been granted interim anticipatory bail by
the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.1.2026, passed in
Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 482 BNSS No. 420 of
2026 and another co-accused Sarwesh Dubey has been granted interim
anticipatory bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
29.1.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 482
BNSS No. 806 of 2026 and the proceedings in respect of Sarwesh Dubey
and co-accused Saumya Dubey has been granted anticipatory bail by the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 8.1.2026 passed in Criminal
Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 482 BNSS No. 10383 of 2025, co-
accused Jai Prakash Dubey has been granted interim anticipatory bail by the
co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.2.2026 passed in
Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 482 BNSS No. 1716 of
2026 and co-accused Sabhajeet Mishra has been granted regular bail by this
Court vide order dated 23.4.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No. 41111 of 2025 and proceedings in respect of Saumya Dubey and
Sarwesh Dubey have been stayed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special
Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2164 of 2026 and Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No. 15683 of 2026 vide orders dated 16.2.2026 and 27.4.2026 respectively.

9. On the other hand, Sri G. S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate
submitted that Akhilesh Dubey (applicant) is hand in gloves with all the co-
accused persons and is mastermind of the gang and is the main beneficiary
of the transactions of his gang. Power of Attorney has been obtained in
favour of Raj Kumar Shukla by extending threat and at gunpoint, putting the
auction purchasers in fear of death by Akhilesh Dubey and his gang. He has
executed various lease deeds in violation of the order of the Courts and has
even used a power of Attorney of a dead person. JP Dubey (a relative of
Akhilesh Dubey and Sarvesh Dubey) has executed a sublease in favour of
M/s Canary Apparels, through its director Sarvesh Dubey (brother of
Akhilesh Dubey), who in turn executed a lease in favour of Renu Agarwal.
Subsequently a fresh lease deed is executed in his favour and Saumya Dubey
(daughter of Akhilesh Dubey) and she is made the arbitrator and her decision
will be final in case of dispute, which is illegal in itself. Investigating Officer
has collected sufficient material during the course of fair and impartial
investigation, that Canary Apparels, Unisex Salon, Marriage Hall (Aagman)
                                                            BAIL No. 5692 of 2026
                                 4

and other business are being run on the disputed land, and Akhilesh Dubey is
obtaining and getting monetary benefits of the same, and he is the main
beneficiary and power of attorney was obtained by extending threats, at gun
point and auction purchasers were put in fear of death. Lease was executed
with Waqf land even after 2010, when auction purchaser had tenancy right
only upto 2010 and one executants namely Munni Devi had died in the year
2015 and power of attorney prepared in the year, 2016 is also being used in
the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The statements of Amrish @ Bunty Srivastava
and Shiv Kishore Tiwari recorded under section 180 of B.N.S.S. reveal the
entire facts, in support of the prosecution.


10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of informant has submitted
Jaipraksh Dubey executed a sublease on 25.05.2010, in favour of M/s.
Canary Aparels Private Limited, through its Director, Sarvesh Dubey, a
brother of Akhilesh Dubey for a period of 29 years, on a rent of Rs. 50,000/-
per year. Sarvesh Dubey, acting as the authorised signatory of M/s. Canary
Apparels Private Limited executed a lease dated 02.02.2012 in favour of
Renu Agrawal, wife of Sharad Agrawal for a period of 11 months
commencing 15.03.2012 and ending 14.03.2013 on a monthly rent of Rs.
52,500/-. The said transaction is an illegal transaction, not authorized by law,
for the reason, that once the lease stands expired, then the same cannot be
extended.


11. It is further submitted on behalf of the informant, that quite apart from
the civil dispute that arises between the parties, there is a definitive criminal
angle relating to usurpation of property by the applicant and co-accused
persons acting in concert, which, in present times, has become a serious
malady, affecting lawful transactions of property in the society. A crime
committed in relation to transactions, relating to property on the same facts
is quite distinct and different from the civil cause of action, that is involved.
The civil cause of action can be pursued to its logical conclusion, but that
does not derogate from the crime, if any, that has been committed in relation
to those transactions by one party or the other from being reported by the
aggrieved and investigated by the Police to take the matter to its own logical
conclusion.



12. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, nature of offence,
evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment and all
attending facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that three co-
accused have been granted interim anticipatory bail, one co-accused,
                                                                                                     BAIL No. 5692 of 2026
                                                                        5

                                    namely, Saumya Dubey has been granted anticipatory bail, one co-accused
                                    namely, Sabhajeet Mishra has been granted regular bail by this Court as well
                                    as proceedings in respect of co-accused Saumya Dubey and Sarwesh Dubey
                                    have been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but without expressing any
                                    opinion on merits of the case, the Court is of the considered view that the
                                    applicant has made out a case for being enlarged on bail. The instant bail
                                    application is allowed.

                                    13. Let the applicant Dr. Akhilesh Dubey 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.

                                    (iv) The applicant shall not leave the country, without the permission of the Court and
                                    shall deposit his passport before the concerned trial Court.


                                    14. 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.

                                    15. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by
                                    the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

                                    May 5, 2026
                                    HR
                                                                                                      (Harvir Singh,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
HEMANT RANJAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad