Allahabad High Court

NAVEENversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 14 April 2026
Bench: ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The court held that the applicant is prima facie guilty of the alleged offences and the case is not fit for bail, leading to the rejection of the bail application.

Summary

The applicant, Naveen, sought enlargement of bail in a criminal case (Cr.No. 756 of 2023) involving alleged offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120‑B IPC relating to a fraudulent property sale. The trial court had rejected his bail and he had been in custody since 13‑12‑2025. The applicant contended he was innocent, arguing that the sale deed was executed by a co‑accused Faisal and that he was merely a seller, not a fraudster, and that the alleged offence was triable by a magistrate. The State opposed bail, asserting that the applicant, acting as a Power of Attorney for Faisal, executed a fraudulent sale deed to defraud the informant, and that the deed was not registered and was based on false documents. The High Court examined the sale deed, the principle of non‑delegation of authority, and found the applicant prima facie guilty, concluding that the gravity of the allegations precluded bail. Consequently, the bail application was rejected.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is prima facie guilty of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120‑B IPC.
Whether the sale deed executed by the applicant as Power of Attorney is valid or fraudulent.
Whether the nature and gravity of the alleged offences justify denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471

Subjects

bail
fraud
property sale
power of attorney
IPC 420
IPC 467
IPC 468
IPC 471
IPC 120-B
prima facie guilt
court discretion

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6761 of 2026

Naveen
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Brij Napit, Vinay Bhushan
Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 68
HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard Shri Vijay Bahadur Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant,
Shri Ramendra Pal Singh, learned AGA for the State respondent and
perused the records.

The instant bail application has been filed seeking the enlargement of the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 756 of 2023, under Sections 420,
467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station-Loni, District-Ghaziabad,
during the pendency of trial before the Court Below. The Bail Application
of the applicant was rejected by the learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Ghaziabad, vide order dated
19.01.2026 and the applicant is stated to be languishing in jail since
13.12.2025.

Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the
applicant is entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very
Case Crime Number for ulterior motives. The First Information Report
giving rise to the instant Case Crime Number has been lodged nominating
the applicant and one Faisal with the allegation that the Informant had
purchased a plot for Rs. 5,50,000/- and now the co-accused Faisal is not
permitting the informant to raise constructions thereon. It is alleged that
both, the applicant and Faisal are property dealers. Both are not
permitting the applicant to raise construction nor are willing to return the
money.

Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the
applicant is the seller and the informant is the purchaser of the property.
Allegations regarding preventing the purchaser from raising construction
over the purchased property has been raised against a co-accused Faisal
and not the applicant. Only allegation is that money is not being returned.
It is argued that once the plot has been sold and possession has been
transferred thereof there is no occassion to return the money. It is argued
BAIL No. 6761 of 2026
2

that the applicant did not cheat the informant nor dishonestly induced the
informant or deceive to deliver any property to the informant and as such
no offence is alleged is made out against the applicant. One other criminal
history pointed out by the learned AGA has been duly explained by way
of supplementary affidavit. The offence alleged is triable by Magistrate.
Applicant undertakes to cooperate in the trial and shall not misuse the
liberty of bail if granted. Accordingly bail has been prayed for.

Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail plea by
submitting that the complicity of the applicant in the commission of the
crime stands established on the materials collected by the Investigating
Officer during investigation. The applicant and co-accused Faisal are
hand in glove and have duped the informant by executing fictitious Sale
Deed and depriving the informant of the fruits of the Sale Deed. Outright
rejection of the bail peal has been prayed for.

Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA
and having perused the records I find that the sale Deed dated 23.03.2023
executed in favour of the wife of the informant namely Nagma was
executed by the applicant as Power of Attorney of co-accused Faisal.
Records reveal that Faisal himself was appointed as Power of Attorney,
he could not have appointed the applicant as his Power of Attorney to
execute the sale deed in favour of the wife of the Informant based on the
principle "Delegatus non protest delegare i.e. a delegate cannot further
delegate". The Sale Deed dated 23.03.2023 in favour of the wife of the
informant was deliberately executed to defraud the informant and his wife
and in the opinion of the Court is not a valid transfer. The applicant is
prima facie guilty of the offences alleged against him. Moreover, it has
come on record that the alleged Power of Attorney has not been found
registered in the records and even otherwise the Sale Deed was got
executed by using fraudulent documents. No case for bail is made out.

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of
allegations, gravity of offence and all attending facts and circumstances of
the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for bail. Hence,
bail application of the applicant is hereby rejected.

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)
April 15, 2026
Deepak/

Digitally signed by :-
DEEPAK KUMAR KUSHWAHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…