Allahabad High Court
HAIDAR ABBASversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant.
Summary
The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Haidar Abbas, who feared arrest in a criminal case involving alleged forgery of a sale deed. The prosecution alleged that Abbas transferred Rs 1,00,000 to an impostor who had executed the deed, and he was named as the primary accused under several IPC sections. Abbas’s father, the purported vendee, had filed a civil suit to cancel the deed after discovering the fraud. The Court noted that Abbas had no prior criminal record, was not the direct beneficiary of the deed, and that the money transfer alone did not constitute incrimination. Since a charge‑sheet had been filed and no custodial interrogation was required, the Court granted anticipatory bail with standard conditions. The order emphasized that the bail decision was not an opinion on the merits of the underlying civil dispute.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant despite allegations under IPC sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 351(2) and 61(2).
- Whether the applicant is the primary accused or a direct beneficiary of the alleged fake sale deed.
- Whether the mere transfer of money to the impostor amounts to a criminal offence warranting denial of bail.
- Whether the applicant’s clean criminal record justifies the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 351(2), 61(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 High Court
- fake sale deed
- impersonation
- money transfer
- criminal antecedents
- IPC sections
- bail conditions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9709 of 2026
Haidar Abbas
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mithilesh Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Shamim Uddin Khan,
Learned counsel appearing for the informant and Learned A.G.A. for the
State as well as perused the record.
2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No.299 of 2024 under Sections 318(4), 338,
336(3), 340(2) 351(2) & 61(2) B.N.S. Police Station Nagina, District
Bijnor, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as the applicant
apprehends his arrest in the abovementioned case.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the allegation is
that a fake sale deed was executed by an impostor in favour of the father
of the applicant. On coming to know regarding the person executing the
sale deed being an impostor, the father of the applicant filed a civil suit
for cancellation of his own sale deed being O.S. No.1169 of 2024 in the
Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nagina, Bijnor. In the present
matter, the final report was submitted in favour of the applicant but a
further investigation was ordered and in the further investigation the only
evidence collected against the applicant is of transferring Rs.1,00,000/-
through his mobile number to the said impostor who had executed the sale
deed. The applicant has no criminal antecedents.
4. Learned counsel for the informant and the learned A.G.A. have
opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the
NABAIL No. 9709 of 2026
2
informant has submitted that the applicant is the primary accused and he
is a direct beneficiary of the sale deed in question. Learned counsel for the
informant could not deny the fact that the father of the applicant has filed
a civil suit for cancellation of the sale deed. Learned A.G.A. could not
point out any criminal antecedents of the applicant.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsels for
the parties.
6. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant is not the
direct beneficiary of the sale deed in question. Even the vendee of the sale
deed, who is the father of the applicant, has filed a civil suit for the
cancellation of the deed supposedly on coming to know that the same had
been executed by an impostor. Mere transfer of money to the account of
the said vendor by the son of the vendee would not necessarily
incriminate the applicant.
7. Taking note of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also
the fact that a charge sheet has now been submitted and the applicant is no
longer required for any custodial interrogation, I deem it appropriate to
grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant
is allowed.
9. The applicant -Haidar Abbas shall appear before the trial Court within
four weeks from today and shall be released on bail on filing his personal
bond and surety to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the
following conditions:-
i. The applicant shall remain present before the trial Court on each date
fixed unless exempted by the trial Court;
ii. 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
officer;
iii. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of
NABAIL No. 9709 of 2026
3
the Court;
iv. The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness;
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned
shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
11. 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 18, 2026
A. Pandey
Digitally signed by :-
ANAND PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…