SUNIL KUMAR YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 9950 of 2026

Sunil Kumar Yadav
                                                            .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)              :     Kavindra Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)         :     Anand Kumar Tiwari, G.A.

Court No. - 71
                 HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Learned counsel for the applicant; Learned A.G.A. for the State;
and Shri Anand Kumar Tiwari, Learned counsel for the informant.

2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No.0193 of 2026, under Sections 319(2), 318(4),
338, 336(3) and 340(2) of the B.N.S., 2023, Police Station – Jhunsi,
District Prayagraj, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, as the
applicant apprehends his arrest in the aforesaid case.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case. He is merely a marginal
witness to the sale deeds executed by Jiya Lal and Hoob Lal. The
allegation is that over the properties that were sold to the informant and
his wife through different sale deeds in the year 2024 and 2025, some
other persons were raising constructions. The Learned counsel for the
applicant has contended that the applicant is neither the owner of the
property in question nor a beneficiary of the sale deed. Being a marginal
witness, he has only been implicated to create pressure on the other
accused. The applicant has no criminal antecedents.

4. Shri Anand Kumar Tiwari, Learned counsel, has contended that the
applicant is one of the primary accused in the present case. He was the
one who had shown the property which was actually not the property
being sold. Sri Tiwari has further contended that approximately Rs.10
lakhs has been received by the applicant from the co-accused Jiya Lal,
who had executed the fake sale deeds in favour of the informant and his
                                                     NABAIL No. 9950 of 2026
                               2


wife.

5. The Learned AGA has also adopted the submissions of the Learned
counsel for the informant but could not point out any criminal antecedents
of the applicant.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the
parties.

7. The allegation is of four sale deeds being executed in favour of the
informant and his wife in the years 2024 to 2025. The informant, after
Holi, when he came to know that someone was raising constructions over
the property sold to him, confronted the co-accused Jiya Lal and Amit
Kumar and asked them to show the property which had been sold, which
was avoided by the co-accused Jiya Lal and Amit Kumar. On threats
being extended by the applicant for initiating police action, the accused
Jiya Lal and Amit Kumar admitted to their mistake and assured return of
the money that was paid for the registered sale deeds. The co-accused Jiya
Lal and Amit Kumar are also stated to have given cheques of Rs. 20 lakhs
and Rs. 33 lakhs as guarantee for the return of the money. It has been
informed by the learned counsel for the informant that the cheques have
been dishonored.

8. Be that as it may, from the averments of the FIR it appears that for the
sale deeds, the sale consideration was sought to be returned through
cheques mentioned above. For the cheques that have been dishonored, the
remedy lies under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The applicant is merely a
marginal witness. The fact that the applicant has received some money
from Jiya Lal would not necessarily incriminate the applicant once Jiya
Lal has given cheques to refund the sale consideration to the informant.

9. On a pointed query made to the Learned counsel for the informant and
the Learned AGA whether the title over the property sold through the sale
deed is disputed, the Learned counsel for the informant and the Learned
AGA do not dispute the title of Jiya Lal. The allegations are of showing a
different property and then selling another property. In the prima facie
opinion of the Court, the dispute appears to be a civil dispute.

10. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the
case, as discussed above, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the applicant on
                                                                                          NABAIL No. 9950 of 2026
                                                                   3


                                    anticipatory bail.

                                    11. The anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.

                                    12. In the event of the arrest of the applicant- Sunil Kumar Yadav,
                                    involved in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory
                                    bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and surety in the like amount to the
                                    satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station/Court
                                    concerned, with the following conditions:-

                                    i. The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police
                                    officer as and when required;

                                    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
                                    the Court;

                                    iv. The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness;

                                    13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned
                                    shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

                                    14. 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.)
                                    October 1, 2026
                                    Kushal




Digitally signed by :-
KUSHAL AGRAWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad