Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail in Rs 3.55 Crore Property Fraud, Faults High Court's Reasoning
A Division Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria set aside the Allahabad High Court's anticipatory bail order, holding it ignored criminal antecedents and the gravity of an economic offence involving a Lucknow residential property.
The Supreme Court on 26 May 2026 cancelled the anticipatory bail granted by the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) to Monika Dwivedi, an accused in a property fraud case involving a residential flat in Lucknow valued at Rs 4,30,00,000. The complainant, Saurabh Agrawal, alleged that Dwivedi and her son received Rs 3,55,00,000 from him and then sold the same property to a third party. A Division Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria found that the High Court had rested its bail order on considerations peripheral to the governing parameters — most critically, it had said nothing about Dwivedi's multiple criminal antecedents of a similar nature, a fact the same High Court had itself recorded only months earlier when dismissing her quashing petition.
The Alleged Fraud and the FIR
The dispute centres on property C-24, E-Park, Mahanagar Extension, Lucknow, which was represented to Saurabh Agrawal as jointly owned by Monika Dwivedi, her son Abhishek Dwivedi, and her daughter Abhilasha Dwivedi. Acting on that representation, Agrawal entered into a notarised agreement to sell dated 08.01.2024, fixing the total sale consideration at Rs 4,30,00,000. He paid Rs 3,55,00,000 in instalments through various modes, all acknowledged in the agreement. He was told the sale deed would be executed once Dwivedi's daughter returned from abroad, and air travel documents were furnished to support that claim.
Despite receiving the substantial payment, Monika Dwivedi and her son executed a sale deed dated 24.06.2024 in favour of a third party, Pankaj Mohan Mishra, transferring the entire property. The complainant further alleged that the daughter had no ownership interest at all, making the original representation false. When he demanded either execution of the sale deed or a refund, he was allegedly threatened.
An FIR was first registered as FIR No. 0333 of 2024 on 17.12.2024 at Police Station Aliganj, District Lucknow North. It was transferred and re-registered as FIR No. 0002 of 2025 on 03.01.2025 at Police Station Mahanagar, District Lucknow North, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
How the Case Reached the Supreme Court
Monika Dwivedi and her son first challenged the FIR by filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1688 of 2025 before the High Court. On 05.03.2025, the High Court referred the parties to mediation, which failed. The writ petition was dismissed on 08.05.2025, with the High Court recording the criminal antecedents of the accused persons and the existence of a prima facie case of financial fraud.
Dwivedi then applied for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, Lucknow (Bail Application No. 3593 of 2025 under Section 482 BNSS). The Sessions Court rejected the application on 18.06.2025, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the criminal antecedents.
A separate writ petition filed by the complainant seeking fair investigation — Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8342 of 2025 — was disposed of by the High Court with a recording that the accused persons were absconding and that coercive steps were being taken by the investigating agency to secure their presence.
Undeterred, Dwivedi filed Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 812 of 2025 under Section 482 BNSS before the High Court. The complainant opposed it by counter affidavit, highlighting the fraudulent conduct, criminal antecedents, and the ongoing investigation. By order dated 06.10.2025, the High Court allowed the application and granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions. Agrawal challenged that order before the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 19112 of 2025, which was converted into Criminal Appeal No. 2850 of 2026.
What the High Court Said — and Why the Supreme Court Disagreed
The High Court had rested its anticipatory bail order on four main observations. First, that the daughter of Dwivedi was abroad at the time of execution of the agreement to sell, casting doubt on whether all joint owners had actually signed. Second, that the agreement was only notarised and not registered. Third, that only Rs 3,55,00,000 out of Rs 4,30,00,000 had been paid and there was no averment of readiness to pay the balance. Fourth, that the complainant had himself sought a refund in the FIR, suggesting the dispute was civil in nature.
The Supreme Court rejected each of these in turn.
On the daughter's absence abroad, the Court held that even if assumed correct, this did not dilute the allegation of inducement. The gravamen of the accusation was that the complainant was led to believe all necessary parties would join the transaction and, acting on that representation, parted with a substantial sum. Whether or not all co-owners actually executed the agreement was a matter of evidence; at the bail stage, the focus had to be on the allegation of deception at the inception.
On the agreement being notarised rather than registered, the Court found the reasoning misplaced. The nature or form of the agreement does not by itself determine the existence of a criminal offence. The allegation was not merely of breach of contract but of fraudulent inducement and subsequent conduct inconsistent with the representations made. The absence of registration did not neutralise the criminality alleged.
On the partial payment and absence of readiness to pay the balance, the Court said this was not determinative at the anticipatory bail stage. The material allegation was that a substantial amount was received by the accused and the property was thereafter alienated to a third party. The issue was not of contractual readiness alone but of the conduct of the accused after receiving a significant portion of the consideration.
On the civil dispute argument, the Court was equally firm. It held that the existence of a civil remedy does not preclude criminal proceedings where the ingredients of a criminal offence are prima facie made out. “The mere fact that the complainant seeks restitution of the amount paid does not efface the allegations of cheating or fraud.”
The Critical Omission: Criminal Antecedents Ignored
Beyond rejecting the High Court's stated reasons, the Supreme Court identified what it called a conspicuous absence in the impugned order. The High Court had said nothing about Dwivedi's criminal antecedents, despite the fact that the same High Court, while dismissing her quashing petition on 08.05.2025, had itself recorded the existence of multiple criminal antecedents of a similar nature against the accused persons. The Sessions Court had also taken note of those antecedents when rejecting bail on 18.06.2025.
The Court found this omission fatal. The allegations pertained to an economic offence involving a substantial sum, coupled with assertions of deliberate conduct in alienating the property to a third party after receipt of a major portion of the sale consideration. The record also showed that Dwivedi and her son were not readily available during investigation and coercive steps were required to secure their presence.
The Court held that the High Court had “proceeded on considerations which are peripheral to the issue at hand” while overlooking factors germane to the exercise of discretion for grant of anticipatory bail. The impugned order did not reflect a proper application of mind.
The Court's Independent Assessment
The Supreme Court did not stop at finding the High Court's reasoning defective. It went further and independently assessed whether anticipatory bail was warranted on the facts. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the magnitude of the transaction, the antecedents attributed to Dwivedi, and the requirements of a fair and effective investigation, the Court concluded that the grant of anticipatory bail at this stage was not warranted.
The Court also clarified that all observations in the judgment were confined to the present adjudication and would not influence the trial on merits.
Order
The Supreme Court allowed Criminal Appeal No. 2850 of 2026. The impugned order dated 06.10.2025 of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) was set aside. The anticipatory bail granted to Respondent No. 2, Monika Dwivedi, stands cancelled.