The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to an applicant accused under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a property-related fraud case, emphasizing that a bona fide purchaser with no criminal antecedents and whose co-accused has already been granted anticipatory bail cannot be denied bail merely because a criminal complaint was filed in what appears to be a civil dispute.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arises from a property transaction involving a sale deed executed in 2019. The informant alleged that on 26.07.2019, he purchased a property and later, on 26.06.2025, discovered that a forged sale deed had been used to secure a loan in favor of the co-accused, Gyanender, and the applicant, Raju Kumar. The FIR, Crime No. 294 of 2025, was registered at Police Station Teelamod, Ghaziabad, under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS).
Key Facts
- The informant claims to have purchased the property on 26.07.2019.
- The alleged forgery and loan disbursement occurred prior to the FIR, which was lodged on 26.06.2025.
- The applicant, Raju Kumar, asserts he is a bona fide purchaser who bought the same property from Gyanender in 2023.
- The applicant has no prior criminal record.
- The co-accused, Gyanender, has already been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench of the same High Court, with the order annexed at page 68 of the paper-book.
- The applicant has been in judicial custody since 20.03.2026.
- All the alleged offences under BNS are non-cognizable and triable by a Magistrate.
Procedural History
- 26.07.2019: Informant claims to have purchased the property.
- 2023: Applicant purchases the property from co-accused Gyanender.
- 26.06.2025: Informant lodges FIR alleging forgery and fraudulent loan disbursement.
- 20.03.2026: Applicant arrested and taken into custody.
- 17.04.2026: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17010 of 2026 filed before the Allahabad High Court.
- 26.05.2026: Hearing conducted before Justice Sameer Jain.
The Parties' Positions
Applicant (Raju Kumar): Claims to be an innocent purchaser who acquired the property in good faith in 2023. Argues that the dispute is purely civil in nature and that the FIR was filed to circumvent civil remedies. Highlights that his co-accused has already been granted anticipatory bail and that he has no criminal history.
Respondent (State of U.P.): Opposed the bail application but did not dispute the factual assertions made by the applicant’s counsel.
Relief Sought
The applicant seeks release on bail during the pendency of trial, with conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation and trial process.
The Legal Issue
Can a person accused of property-related offences under the BNS, who is a bona fide purchaser with no criminal record and whose co-accused has already been granted anticipatory bail, be denied bail when the alleged offences are non-cognizable and triable by a Magistrate?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is a bona fide purchaser who acquired the property in 2023, well after the alleged fraudulent transaction in 2019. He argued that the dispute is essentially civil in nature, and the FIR was filed to gain an unfair advantage in a property dispute. He relied on the fact that the co-accused, Gyanender, had already been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench, and the applicant’s position is at least as strong, if not stronger. He emphasized the absence of any criminal antecedents and the fact that all offences are non-cognizable and triable by a Magistrate. He further noted that the applicant has been in custody since 20.03.2026, and prolonged detention without trial is unjust.
For the Respondent/State
The learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the bail application but did not contest the factual assertions made by the applicant’s counsel. No counter-evidence or legal argument was advanced to refute the claim of bona fide purchase or the parity with the co-accused’s bail status.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the allegations, the status of the applicant, and the procedural posture of the case. It noted that the applicant has no criminal history and that the offences under the BNS are non-cognizable and triable by a Magistrate, which weighs in favor of bail. The Court observed that the co-accused, Gyanender, who is alleged to have executed the forged sale deed, has already been granted anticipatory bail. The Court held that the applicant’s position is at least as strong as that of the co-accused, given that he is a purchaser who acquired the property in good faith and is not alleged to have forged any document.
"Considering the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant and the facts that prima facie applicant appears to be bona fide purchaser and even co-accused Gyanender, who sold the property to applicant, has been released on anticipatory bail and case of applicant is at better footing than him and applicant is not having any criminal history and all the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate and in the present matter applicant is in jail since 20.03.2026, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail."
The Court emphasized that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, particularly where the accused is not a flight risk, has no prior record, and the allegations do not suggest violent or organized criminal conduct. The Court clarified that its observations are strictly limited to the bail stage and do not prejudge the merits of the case.
The Verdict
The applicant, Raju Kumar, is granted bail. He shall be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The conditions include: (i) appearing before the trial court on all dates unless exempted; (ii) refraining from tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses; and (iii) not engaging in any criminal or anti-social activity. In case of breach, the prosecution may move for cancellation of bail. The Court clarified that its order does not prejudge the merits of the case.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Bona Fide Purchasers Are Entitled to Bail in Property Fraud Cases
- Practitioners should argue that a person who acquires property in good faith, without knowledge of prior fraud, cannot be equated with the alleged forger or fraudster.
- Bail applications must highlight the absence of criminal intent and the civil nature of the underlying dispute.
Parity with Co-Accused Is a Strong Ground for Bail
- When a co-accused has been granted anticipatory bail on similar facts, the court must examine whether the applicant’s position is equally or more meritorious.
- Failure to grant bail in such circumstances may violate the principle of equal treatment under Article 14.
Non-Cognizable Offences Favor Grant of Bail
- For offences triable by Magistrates under the BNS, courts must be cautious about prolonged pre-trial detention.
- The absence of a criminal record and the non-violent nature of the offence are decisive factors in favor of bail.
Custody Duration Must Be Considered
- Prolonged custody without trial, especially in non-serious offences, is a compelling reason to grant bail.
- Courts should not delay bail decisions merely because the case is under investigation.
