Whether the High Court was legally justified in granting anticipatory bail to an accused in a high-value property fraud case by treating the matter as a civil dispute, while ignoring the accused’s deceptive conduct, non-cooperation with investigation, and extensive criminal antecedents.
Appeal allowed; the High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail to Respondent No. 2 (Monika Dwivedi) was set aside, and her bail protection was officially cancelled.
1. Factual Matrix
The appellant (complainant), Saurabh Agrawal, lodged FIR No. 0002 of 2025 alleging a large-scale financial fraud involving a residential property in Lucknow. The accused, Monika Dwivedi (Respondent No. 2), along with her son and daughter, represented themselves as joint owners of the property and entered into a notarized agreement to sell with the complainant for a total consideration of ₹4,30,00,000. Believing their representation, the complainant paid a substantial sum of ₹3,55,00,000 in installments.
The accused promised to execute the final sale deed once the daughter returned from abroad. However, after pocketing the major portion of the money, Respondent No. 2 and her son dishonestly executed a sale deed in favor of a third party, transferring the entire property. It was later revealed that the daughter had no actual ownership interest in the property. When the complainant demanded his money back, he was threatened.
2. Prior Procedural History
- Writ Petition for Quashing: The accused initially moved the High Court to quash the FIR. The High Court dismissed their petition on May 8, 2025, specifically noting a prima facie case of serious financial fraud and highlighting the criminal antecedents of the accused.
- Sessions Court Rejection: The Court of Sessions, Lucknow, subsequently rejected Respondent No. 2’s anticipatory bail application due to the gravity of the economic offense and her past criminal record.
- Absconding Status: In a separate parallel writ petition, the High Court recorded that the accused persons were absconding from the law and that the investigating agency had to resort to coercive steps to secure their presence.
3. High Court’s Grant of Anticipatory Bail
Despite these glaring facts, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) granted anticipatory bail to Respondent No. 2 on October 6, 2025. The High Court based its relief on the grounds that:
- The daughter was abroad during execution, meaning the agreement wasn’t signed by all joint owners;
- The agreement was merely notarized and not registered under property laws;
- The balance amount had not yet been fully paid; and
- The complainant sought a refund in the FIR, indicating that the dispute was primarily of a civil nature.
4. Supreme Court’s Analysis and Criticisms
The Supreme Court strongly rejected the High Court’s reasoning, systematically correcting the legal fallacies applied to the grant of bail protection:
- Deception at Inception over Form of Agreement: The Court held that the form of an agreement (notarized vs. registered) does not dilute a criminal offense. The core issue is the fraudulent inducement. The complainant parted with ₹3,55,00,000 based on a deliberate misrepresentation that a clear title would be transferred. Subsequent alienation to a third party clearly highlighted criminal intent, rendering contractual readiness or property registration arguments entirely irrelevant.
- Civil Remedy Does Not Block Criminal Action: The Court reiterated the established position of law that the mere availability of a civil remedy or a request for financial restitution in an FIR does not wipe out criminal culpability when elements of cheating, forgery, and fraud are distinctly present.
- Fatal Omission of Germane Factors: The Supreme Court sharply criticized the High Court for remaining completely silent on critical parameters governing anticipatory bail. The High Court completely ignored the massive financial magnitude of the economic offense, the fact that the accused had been absconding to evade justice, and her documented history of similar criminal antecedents. Ignoring these vital factors made the High Court’s exercise of discretionary power legally unsustainable.
5. Conclusion and Order
The Supreme Court concluded that the case involved a premeditated economic fraud where a fair and effective investigation was absolutely paramount. Ruling that the accused was completely undeserving of discretionary pre-arrest bail protection, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, reversed the High Court’s order, and cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to Monika Dwivedi.
2026 INSC 548
Saurabh Agrawal V. State of Uttar Pradesh And Another (D.O.J. 26.05.2026)
