Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail in Multi-Crore Property Fraud Case

The Supreme Court set aside an order granting anticipatory bail to an accused in a multi-crore real estate fraud, emphasizing that the existence of a civil remedy does not neutralize criminal allegations of cheating and fraud.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria heard the appeal filed by a complainant against the High Court’s decision to provide pre-arrest protection to an accused involved in a substantial economic offense. The Court scrutinized whether the High Court was justified in treating the matter as a civil dispute and ignoring the criminal antecedents of the accused.

The Intersection of Civil Remedies and Criminal Liability

The Court observed that the High Court had erroneously relied on peripheral factors such as the lack of registration of the agreement to sell and the complainant’s request for a refund to classify the dispute as civil. The Supreme Court clarified that the nature of the agreement whether notarized or registered does not determine the existence of a criminal offense if there is evidence of fraudulent inducement.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It is well settled 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."

Failure to Consider Criminal Antecedents and Investigative Needs

The Bench pointed out that the High Court failed to consider relevant factors, specifically the criminal history of the accused and the necessity of investigation in economic offenses. The Court noted that the accused had been absconding and coercive steps were previously required to secure their presence.

Background:

The case originated from an FIR lodged by Saurabh Agrawal, who alleged that he was induced into an agreement to sell for a residential property in Lucknow for Rs. 4.30 Crores. He claimed to have paid Rs. 3.55 Crores, after which the accused allegedly sold the same property to a third party. The accused were charged under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Initially, the High Court had referred the parties to mediation, which failed. Subsequent attempts by the accused to quash the FIR and seek bail from the Sessions Court were rejected due to the prima facie case of fraud and their criminal history. However, the High Court later granted anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS. The Supreme Court found this exercise of discretion unsustainable, noting that the High Court overlooked the gravity of the economic offense and the conduct of the accused. The appeal was allowed, and the bail was cancelled.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2850 OF 2026
NeutralCitation: 2026 INSC 548
Case Title: SAURABH AGRAWAL VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

Source: 2026 CaseBase(SC) 464