Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to an appeal filed by the complainant, Saurabh Agrawal, against the order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, granting anticipatory bail to Respondent No. 2, Monika Dwivedi, in connection with FIR No. 0002 of 2025 registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The FIR alleged a large-scale financial fraud involving a residential property in Lucknow. The complainant claimed that the accused, along with her son and daughter, represented themselves as joint owners of the property and entered into an agreement to sell for Rs. 4,30,00,000/-. A sum of Rs. 3,55,00,000/- was paid in instalments. Despite receiving substantial consideration, the accused executed a sale deed in favour of a third party, Pankaj Mohan Mishra, on 24.06.2024, thereby transferring the entire property. The complainant alleged that the daughter had no ownership interest, rendering the earlier representation false. Upon demanding execution of the sale deed or refund, the complainant was allegedly threatened. The High Court granted anticipatory bail to Respondent No. 2, which was challenged by the complainant before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, after hearing the parties, held that the High Court had failed to consider the gravity of the offences, the prima facie case, and the possibility of tampering with evidence. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed Respondent No. 2 to surrender within two weeks. The appeal was allowed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail - Cancellation - Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B, 34 IPC - The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused in a property fraud case involving Rs. 3.55 crore. The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to consider the gravity of the offences, the prima facie case, and the possibility of tampering with evidence. The bail was cancelled and the accused was directed to surrender. (Paras 1-8) B) Criminal Procedure - Anticipatory Bail - Section 482 BNSS - The High Court's order granting anticipatory bail was set aside as it did not adequately assess the seriousness of the allegations and the likelihood of the accused fleeing justice. The Supreme Court emphasized that anticipatory bail should not be granted in a routine manner in cases involving economic offences. (Paras 2-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in granting anticipatory bail to Respondent No. 2 in a case involving serious economic offences and allegations of large-scale financial fraud.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 06.10.2025, and directed Respondent No. 2 to surrender within two weeks.
Law Points
- Anticipatory bail cancellation
- gravity of economic offences
- misuse of bail
- consideration of prima facie case
- Section 482 BNSS
