NIRDOSH CHAUDHARYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 7371 of 2026

Nirdosh Chaudhary
                                                            .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Aditya Prasad Mishra, Ashish Kumar
                                Mishra, Girish Chandra Yadav,
                                Prathamesh Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 55
                 HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

1. Heard Dr. C.P. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
Aditya Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri
Sandeep Chaudhary, learned AGA and perused the material available on
record.

2. The present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the
prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Nirdosh Chaudhary in
Case Crime No. 209 of 2019, under Sections 218, 420, 467, 468, 471,
120B I.P.C., Sections 13, 13(i)a, 13(i)b, 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption
Act, Police Station - Beeta-2, District - Gautam Budh Nagar.

3. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
applicant that applicant is a private person and it is alleged that applicant
has purchased the land from the farmers and thereafter sold the aforesaid
land to the Development Authority. It is further submitted that simple sale
and purchase transaction cannot amount to criminal offence unless the
ingredients of the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. is satisfied. In the
present case the ingredients are not satisfied to that extent. There is no
allegation against the applicant that sale transaction was sham in nature. It
is further submitted by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
applicant that applicant is innocent and has no concern with the present
matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. No prima facie
case is made out against the applicant. The charge sheet has been
                                                       NABAIL No. 7371 of 2026
                                2


submitted on 23.2.2026. If the applicant is enlarged on anticipatory bail,
he will not misuse the liberty and cooperate with the trial. The applicant
has apprehension of his arrest by the police any time. The criminal history
of the applicant has been explained in paragraph nos. 3, 4 and 5 of the
supplementary affidavit dated 1.9.2026.

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer and submits that applicant is
relative of one V.P. Singh who was the then OSD in the Development
Authority. Learned A.G.A. further submits that entire purchase by the
Development Authority has been made at the behest of the person who
are relatives of the officers of the Development Authority.

5. It is not shown by learned AGA that the offence in question will have
impact on society at large. It is not shown that act causes harm to the
society. The accusations arise out of dispute between individuals. It is not
shown by learned AGA that the nature and gravity of allegations are such
that the same would disentitle the applicant for relief of anticipatory bail.
Learned AGA has not raised concern that any prejudice would be caused
to free, fair and full trial in the event the applicant is granted anticipatory
bail. No material, facts, circumstances or concern been shown by learned
AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or
witnesses or accused is of such character that his mere presence at large
would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to
subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

6. Learned AGA for the State has pointed out the criminal antecedents of
the applicant. No material or circumstance has been brought to the notice
of this Court with regard to tampering of evidence or intimidating of
witness in previous criminal cases.

7. In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, the Apex
Court in para 30 has observed:-

"We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-
sheeter we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is
never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of
regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been
booked."
                                                      NABAIL No. 7371 of 2026
                               3


8. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020
(11) SCC 648, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of
several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for
refusal of bail.

9. In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not
the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise
adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate
witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any
material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. If the
accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail
only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on
the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to
accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the
applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent.

10. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the
attendance of the accused. No material particulars or circumstances
suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of
justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or
intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for
the State.

10-A. It is to be seen that insofar as the applicant is concerned the
applicant has purchased the land from the farmer and has sold the land to
the Development Authority against sale consideration. The name of the
applicant was also mutated as per the admitted case of the parties. The
transaction of sale and purchase prima facie is a civil dispute between the
parties. It has not been shown by learned A.G.A. as to how offence under
Sections 13, 13(i)a, 13(i)b, 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act would
be attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case when the
applicant is not a public servant.

11. In view of the above, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail in
respect of offence described in para 2 of the present order. In the event of
arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his
furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following
                                                                                          NABAIL No. 7371 of 2026
                                                                    4


                                    conditions:-

                                    (i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any 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 to any police
                                    office.

                                    (ii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of
                                    the Court concerned.

                                    (iii) In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant
                                    shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.

                                    (iv) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial.

                                    (v) The applicant shall maintain law and order.

                                    (vi) The applicant shall regularly remain present during the trial, and
                                    cooperate with the Court to complete the trial for the above offences.

                                    (vii) Non presence of the applicant or his counsel before the court
                                    concerned shall be construed as violation of the present order and the
                                    court concerned would be at liberty to take coercive measures in
                                    accordance with law.

                                    12. In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer
                                    shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of
                                    protection granted to the applicant.

                                    13. With the directions made above, the anticipatory bail application
                                    stands allowed.


                                                                                       (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)
                                    September 29, 2026
                                    VMA




Digitally signed by :-
VISHWA MOHAN ARORA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad