Monika Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Heard Sri Vaibhav Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-I appearing on behalf of the State and Sri Sharad Pathak, the learned counsel of the complainant.

¶10

The instant application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.02 of 2025, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B, 34 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Mahanagar, District Lucknow.

¶11

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 03.01.2025 against three persons, including the applicant and her family members, stating that the applicant had proposed to sell her residential house to the complainant. All the accused persons were joint owners of the house. The deal was settled for a total sale consideration of Rs. 4,30,00,000/- and the complainant paid a total of Rs. 3,55,00,000/- in various installments and on 08.01.2024, an agreement to sell the property was executed by three accused persons in favour of the complainant, which agreement was verified by a notary public. In the same breath, the complainant has stated that co-accused Abhilasha Dwivedi was abroad at the time of execution of the agreement. Thereafter, the accused persons executed a sale deed in respect of the house in favour of the another person on 29.06.2025. The applicant has requested in the F.I.R that the

¶12

NABAIL No. 812 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

amount of Rs. 3,55,00,000/- paid by him to the accused persons be refunded to him.

¶15

In the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and she has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant's involvement in three other criminal cases has been disclosed in para 53 of the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application.

¶16

Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the anticipatory bail application and he has submitted that the applicant has cheated the complainant by entering into an agreement to sell immovable property to him, taking money from him and thereafter, selling away the property to some other person. He has submitted that the applicant has cheated numerous other persons also in the same manner.

¶17

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that although the F.I.R alleges that an agreement to sell an immovable property was executed by all the three named accused persons, it also stated that one of the accused persons was abroad at the time of the execution of the agreement, which indicates that the agreement was not executed by all the joint owners of the property; the F.I.R states that the agreement for purchasing an immovable property worth Rs.4,30,00,000/- was executed and verified before a notary public and no registered agreement was executed by the complainant; the F.I.R states that out of the agreed sale considerations of Rs. 4,30,00,000/merely Rs. 3,55,00,000/- have been paid by the complainant and there is no averment that the complainant has paid the entire sale consideration or that the complainant was ready to pay the entire balance sale consideration; the complainant has requested in the F.I.R that the amount paid by him be refunded to him, which relief is essentially of a civil nature, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶18

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant- Monika Dwivedi before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, she

¶19

NABAIL No. 812 of 2025

¶20

3

¶21

shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court:

¶22

(i). that the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶23

(ii) that 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 or tamper with the evidence;

¶24

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court.

¶25

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and

¶26

(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶27

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶28

October 6, 2025

¶29

Preeti

¶30

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Monika Dwivedi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monika Dwivedi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prabha Devi Paramedical College, Sant Kabir Nagar Thru. Manager Vijay Kumar Rai and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education, Lko. and Others

V N B P College of Pharmacy, Gorakhpur Thru. Secy., Rajesh Kumar Yadav and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education, Lko. and Others

Pratap (in Aadhar Pratap Singh) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Smt.Shashi Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Kapil Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mahendra Kumar Yadav vs U.O.I Thru. Inspector Cbn Lko.