Anticipatory bail denied to seller; son granted relief for lack of direct involvement.

The complainant alleged that applicant No. 1, Jaiprakash Pandey, agreed to sell him a portion of jointly recorded land, received advance payments stated to total ₹34,06,000, but did not execute the sale deed.

The State and complainant further alleged that, after the agreement, applicant No. 1 relinquished his share and the family members executed a sale deed for the land in favour of applicant No. 2, his son.

The complainant had filed a civil suit and later withdrawn it with liberty to bring a better-constituted suit.

A crime was registered under Sections 3(5), 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The applicants’ second application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was before the Court.

1. Whether applicant No. 1 was entitled to anticipatory bail, having regard to the allegation that he accepted advance money under the agreement to sell and thereafter relinquished his share.

2. Whether applicant No. 2 was entitled to anticipatory bail where he was not directly involved in the agreement to sell but the land was subsequently transferred to him.

The application was considered under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides for anticipatory bail.

The alleged offences were under Sections 3(5), 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Court’s stated basis for deciding the application was its assessment of each applicant’s role and the circumstances alleged; it cited no precedent or further legal test.

The Court considered the allegations against applicant No. 1 to be direct: he allegedly entered into the agreement, received a substantial advance, and then relinquished his share before the family members sold the same land to applicant No. 2.

Having regard to that role and the alleged manner of the transaction, the Court declined anticipatory bail to applicant No. 1.

By contrast, applicant No. 2 was not directly involved in the agreement to sell; the Court therefore considered it appropriate to grant him anticipatory bail.

It allowed the application of applicant No. 2, Aaditiya Kumar Pandey, and directed that, in the event of arrest, he be released on a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety for the like sum, subject to conditions concerning availability for interrogation, non-interference with witnesses or the investigation, fair and expeditious trial, and attendance before the trial Court.