Allahabad High Court
AJAY PARMARversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The court allowed the anticipatory bail application and confirmed the interim bail on the same terms.
Summary
The applicant, Ajay Parmar, sought anticipatory bail in a case where his father, a co-accused, had allegedly sold property to an informant and deposited part of the consideration in Ajay's account. The informant later filed an affidavit stating that the sale deed had been executed in favour of his father, indicating no dispute. The State opposed bail but did not contest the affidavit. This was the second bail application; the first was dismissed for unexplained criminal history, but the applicant later clarified his history and was given interim anticipatory bail on 20‑08‑2026, which he has not misused. Considering the affidavit and the clarified criminal record, the court confirmed the interim bail and granted anticipatory bail on the same terms for any future arrest under the listed IPC sections.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail despite the pending FIR and serious IPC charges.
- Whether the informant's affidavit in favour of the accused negates the existence of a criminal offence.
- Whether the applicant's explanation of his criminal history satisfies the court's requirement for bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482
- Section 438
- Indian Penal Code
- sale deed dispute
- affidavit
- criminal history
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 8652 of 2026
Ajay Parmar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Satish Kumar Tyagi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Learned counsel for the applicant; and Learned A.G.A. for the
State.
2. The Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is the
son of the co-accused Gajendra Singh Parmar. The co-accused Gajendra
Singh Parmar had executed an unregistered agreement to sell in favour of
the informant. Part of the sale consideration, that is Rs. 11,30,000/-, is
said to have been deposited in the account of the applicant. After the
registration of the FIR, the sale deed has been executed and an affidavit
has been given by the informant Kishan Veer Singh addressed to the
Circle Officer, Sirsaganj, District Firozabad stating that a sale deed on
19.07.2025 had been executed in favour of the father of the informant.
Relying upon the said affidavit, Learned counsel for the applicant states
that no dispute remains and from the perusal of the material on record,
even otherwise, no offence is made out.
3. The Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but does not
dispute the fact that the informant has filed an affidavit in favour of the
accused.
4. This is a second bail application. The first bail application of the
applicant was dismissed by this Court as the criminal history had not been
explained. Liberty was granted to file a fresh application. The criminal
history of two other cases has been duly explained which has not been
disputed by the Learned A.G.A. The applicant was granted interim
anticipatory bail on 20.08.2026 and is not stated to have misused the
NABAIL No. 8652 of 2026
2
liberty so granted to him.
5. Taking note of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also
the fact that the informant has filed an affidavit in favour of the accused, I
deem it appropriate to confirm the interim anticipatory bail granted to the
applicant.
6. The anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.
7. The interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant is hereby
confirmed. In the event of the arrest of the applicant- Ajay Parmar, in
Case Crime/FIR No.379 of 2025, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471,
120B of the I.P.C., Police Station Sirsaganj, District Firozabad, he shall
be enlarged on anticipatory bail, on the same terms and conditions, as
fixed in the earlier order dated 20.08.2026.
8. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for
deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and are not to be
considered to be an opinion on the merits of the case.
(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
September 8, 2026
Kushal
Digitally signed by :-
KUSHAL AGRAWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…