The Supreme Court has cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to an accused in a high-value property fraud case, holding that the existence of a civil dispute or a claim for refund of money cannot dilute allegations of cheating and fraudulent inducement when the ingredients of a criminal offence are prima facie made out.
The bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N. V. Anjaria observed that while considering anticipatory bail, courts must focus on relevant factors such as the seriousness of allegations, criminal antecedents, and the requirements of investigation rather than peripheral considerations.
The bench set aside the Allahabad High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail to one of the accused and restored the emphasis on established principles governing grant of pre-arrest protection.
According to the facts of the case, the complainant alleged that a residential property situated at Mahanagar Extension, Lucknow, had been represented as jointly owned by the accused and her children. Relying on these representations, the complainant entered into an agreement to sell on 8 January 2024 for a total consideration of ₹4.30 crore. The complainant claimed to have paid ₹3.55 crore through various instalments and payment modes, which were acknowledged in the agreement. It was allegedly represented that the sale deed would be executed after the return of one of the family members from abroad, and supporting travel-related documents were also furnished.
The dispute escalated when, despite receiving a substantial portion of the consideration amount, the accused and her son allegedly executed a sale deed in favour of a third party. The complainant contended that one of the family members who was represented as a co-owner had no ownership interest in the property at all, making the initial representations false and misleading. The complainant further alleged that when execution of the sale deed or refund of money was demanded, threats were issued.
The matter had already witnessed multiple legal proceedings. Earlier, the accused had challenged the FIR before the High Court. While rejecting that challenge, the High Court had noted the existence of criminal antecedents and observed that a prima facie case of financial fraud existed. Subsequently, an anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court was also rejected considering the seriousness of allegations and the accused’s criminal history. Further proceedings before the High Court also recorded that coercive measures were being taken because the accused persons were allegedly absconding during investigation.
However, the High Court later granted anticipatory bail based on several factors. It noted that one of the alleged co-owners was abroad at the time of execution of the agreement, raising questions regarding whether all owners had actually executed the agreement. It also considered that the agreement was merely notarized and not registered, that only part payment had been made, and that the complainant had sought refund of the money, suggesting the matter appeared to be civil in nature.
The Supreme Court disagreed with this approach and held that these considerations had no direct nexus with principles governing anticipatory bail. The Court observed that the essence of the allegations lay in inducement and deception at the inception of the transaction. Whether every co-owner signed the agreement or not would be a matter of evidence during trial and could not diminish the allegations of cheating at the bail stage.
The Court further held that merely because the agreement to sell was notarized rather than registered could not determine whether a criminal offence existed. It observed that the allegations involved fraudulent inducement and subsequent conduct inconsistent with the representations allegedly made by the accused. Therefore, the form of the agreement itself could not neutralize criminality.
The Supreme Court stated that the relevant issue was not contractual readiness of the purchaser but the conduct of the accused after receiving a significant amount and allegedly transferring the property elsewhere. The Court also rejected the High Court’s conclusion that seeking a refund converted the matter into a purely civil dispute. It reiterated the settled legal principle that availability of a civil remedy does not bar criminal proceedings when allegations disclose ingredients of cheating or fraud.
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for overlooking relevant considerations such as the alleged economic nature of the offence, criminal antecedents, and the accused’s conduct during investigation. It noted that the allegations involved a substantial financial transaction and that the accused persons had allegedly not cooperated with the investigation, requiring coercive action for securing their presence.
Holding that the High Court had proceeded on peripheral considerations while ignoring relevant factors, the Supreme Court concluded that the grant of anticipatory bail reflected improper exercise of discretion. Consequently, the anticipatory bail granted to the accused was cancelled and the appeal was allowed. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to adjudication of the bail issue and would not affect the merits of the trial.
Case Details
Case Title: Saurabh Agrawal Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another
Citation: JURISHOUR-1407-SC-2026
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2850 Of 2026
Date: 26/05/2026
