Dismissed¶18

Naveen v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Apr 2026BAIL/6761/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Naveen v. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6761 of 2026, Allahabad High Court (Ashutosh Srivastava, J.), decided 15.04.2026. Bail refusal in cheating/forgery case (Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Case Crime No. 756 of 2023, P.S. Loni, Ghaziabad) involving sale deed dated 23.03.2023 executed via purportedly non-delegable power of attorney; unregistered POA; fraudulent documents; prima facie guilt; bail application dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Since co-accused Faisal was himself only a Power of Attorney holder, he could not have appointed the applicant as his Power of Attorney to execute the sale deed in favour of the informant's wife, on the principle that a delegate cannot further delegate. ¶17

Naveen Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Naveen deserves to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 756 of 2023 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

The alleged Power of Attorney was not found registered in the records and, even otherwise, the Sale Deed was got executed by using fraudulent documents.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

¶17

Key takeaways

The Sale Deed dated 23.03.2023 in favour of the wife of the informant was deliberately executed to defraud the informant and his wife and, in the opinion of the Court, is not a valid transfer.ratio¶17
On the materials on record the applicant is prima facie guilty of the offences alleged against him.ratio¶17
Considering the submissions, nature of allegations, gravity of offence and attending facts and circumstances, it is not a fit case for bail; no case for bail is made out and the bail application is rejected.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail rejected - Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC (Case Crime No. 756 of 2023, P.S. Loni, Distt. Ghaziabad). Applicant had executed sale deed dated 23.03.2023 in favour of the informant's wife as Power of Attorney of co-accused Faisal; Faisal being himself only a Power of Attorney holder could not further delegate (a delegate cannot further delegate), so the deed was held not a valid transfer and deliberately executed to defraud the informant and his wife. The alleged Power of Attorney was not found registered and the deed was got executed using fraudulent documents; applicant held prima facie guilty. Earlier bail rejection by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Ghaziabad (order dated 19.01.2026) followed by dismissal of the bail application; applicant in custody since 13.12.2025.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6761 of 2026

Naveen

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.

.....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Brij Napit, Vinay Bhushan Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 68

¶8

HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶9

Heard Shri Vijay Bahadur Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ramendra Pal Singh, learned AGA for the State respondent and perused the records.

¶10

The instant bail application has been filed seeking the enlargement of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 756 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station-Loni, District-Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial before the Court Below. The Bail Application of the applicant was rejected by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Ghaziabad, vide order dated 19.01.2026 and the applicant is stated to be languishing in jail since 13.12.2025.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the applicant is entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very Case Crime Number for ulterior motives. The First Information Report giving rise to the instant Case Crime Number has been lodged nominating the applicant and one Faisal with the allegation that the Informant had purchased a plot for Rs. 5,50,000/- and now the co-accused Faisal is not permitting the informant to raise constructions thereon. It is alleged that both, the applicant and Faisal are property dealers. Both are not permitting the applicant to raise construction nor are willing to return the money.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the applicant is the seller and the informant is the purchaser of the property. Allegations regarding preventing the purchaser from raising construction over the purchased property has been raised against a co-accused Faisal and not the applicant. Only allegation is that money is not being returned. It is argued that once the plot has been sold and possession has been transferred thereof there is no occassion to return the money. It is argued

¶13

BAIL No. 6761 of 2026

¶14

¶15

that the applicant did not cheat the informant nor dishonestly induced the informant or deceive to deliver any property to the informant and as such no offence is alleged is made out against the applicant. One other criminal history pointed out by the learned AGA has been duly explained by way of supplementary affidavit. The offence alleged is triable by Magistrate. Applicant undertakes to cooperate in the trial and shall not misuse the liberty of bail if granted. Accordingly bail has been prayed for.

¶16

Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail plea by submitting that the complicity of the applicant in the commission of the crime stands established on the materials collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation. The applicant and co-accused Faisal are hand in glove and have duped the informant by executing fictitious Sale Deed and depriving the informant of the fruits of the Sale Deed. Outright rejection of the bail peal has been prayed for.

¶17

Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA and having perused the records I find that the sale Deed dated 23.03.2023 executed in favour of the wife of the informant namely Nagma was executed by the applicant as Power of Attorney of co-accused Faisal. Records reveal that Faisal himself was appointed as Power of Attorney, he could not have appointed the applicant as his Power of Attorney to execute the sale deed in favour of the wife of the Informant based on the principle "Delegatus non protest delegare i.e. a delegate cannot further delegate". The Sale Deed dated 23.03.2023 in favour of the wife of the informant was deliberately executed to defraud the informant and his wife and in the opinion of the Court is not a valid transfer. The applicant is prima facie guilty of the offences alleged against him. Moreover, it has come on record that the alleged Power of Attorney has not been found registered in the records and even otherwise the Sale Deed was got executed by using fraudulent documents. No case for bail is made out.

¶18

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegations, gravity of offence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for bail. Hence, bail application of the applicant is hereby rejected .

¶19

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)

¶20

April 15, 2026 Deepak/

¶21

Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Naveen v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naveen v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd Shadab vs State of U.P.

Sharad Saxena Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Saini Vs State of U.P.

Smt Lallo Devi @ Chandrawati and 2 Others Vs Subhash Kumar Patel and 5 Others

Salman Tomar and Another Vs State of U.P.

Ankit Johri and Another Vs State of U.P.