A Habitual Offender with 52 Cases Cannot Seek Leniency: Allahabad High Court Refuses Bail in Land Fraud Case

“Bail Jurisdiction Must Be Exercised Judicially, Not Mechanically – Especially for Repeat Offenders”: Allahabad High Court delivered a stern and significant ruling refusing bail to an accused facing 52 criminal cases, predominantly under Section 420 IPC. The Court, in a strong indictment of habitual offenders seeking leniency, declared:

“There is great apprehension in the mind of the Court that the applicant upon release on bail may tamper with evidence and may influence the witnesses. There are also great apprehensions that he may breach the conditions imposed by this Court and can repeat the same nature of offence in future.”

This observation underscores the Court's position that criminal history, particularly of repeated economic offences, directly impacts the entitlement to bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

The bail plea arose from an FIR lodged by one Pushpa Prajapati on 7 September 2023, wherein Kamlesh Yadav, a property dealer, was accused of defrauding the complainant in a land transaction. The FIR alleged that Kamlesh accepted a total of ₹14.5 lakhs for a property deal involving land in Bahrampur, District Gorakhpur. However, the complainant later discovered that the person impersonating as the real owner — co-accused Ajay Sharma — was not who he claimed to be.

Despite the execution of a registered sale deed, the transaction was tainted with alleged impersonation and misrepresentation. The complainant, who had even constructed a residential house on the property, was shocked to discover that the sale deed had been executed by an imposter, allegedly orchestrated by the applicant.

The bail application had earlier been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge on 16 June 2024, citing the heinous nature of the offence.

The central legal issue was whether an applicant facing 52 criminal cases, largely under Section 420 IPC, could be granted regular bail when the offences displayed a pattern of fraud, and whether the bail granted to co-accused could influence the decision in his favor.

In rejecting the application, the Court drew upon the landmark rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including:

In Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, the Supreme Court had held:
“More heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter.”

The Court quoted Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. emphasizing that:
“There is a need to indicate in the order, reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted, particularly where an accused was charged of having committed a serious offence.”

In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, the Supreme Court categorically held:
“Among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are the nature and gravity of the accusation, severity of punishment, danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, and likelihood of the offence being repeated.”

The Court affirmed that Section 420 IPC, being cognizable and non-bailable, calls for cautious scrutiny in bail matters, especially when the accused is a habitual offender.

“It is the duty of the Court to take into consideration certain factors such as nature of accusation, severity of punishment in case of conviction, and the nature of supporting evidence,” the Judge reiterated, citing precedent from Ms. Y. v. State of Rajasthan.

Refusing to grant any relief to Kamlesh Yadav, the Court observed:

“The present applicant is involved in 52 criminal cases of similar nature… almost all criminal cases are of similar nature… the applicant is a habitual offender.”

Addressing the argument that co-accused Chandra Shekhar Shahi, a Sub-Registrar, was granted bail earlier, the Court made a crucial distinction:

“It is pertinent to note that co-accused in the matter who has been released on bail, however, bearing no resemblance to the present applicant as he is habitual offender and has criminal history of 52 cases.”

The Court emphasized that mere grant of bail to a co-accused does not entitle a habitual offender to the same relief, particularly when his involvement appears more substantial and repeated.

Referring to the threat to justice and future risk, the Court said:

“There is great apprehension in the mind of the Court that the applicant upon release on bail may tamper with evidence and may influence the witnesses.”

In a strong message against habitual economic offenders, the Allahabad High Court upheld the principles of cautious bail jurisprudence and denied liberty to an individual with a long trail of deceitful conduct.

“Taking into the consideration of aforesaid reasons, this Court cannot take lenient view while exercising its discretionary jurisdiction.”

Thus, the bail application was dismissed as devoid of any merit.

Date of Decision: 13 May 2025