Ms. Dwivedi, your daughter was abroad at the time of the agreement. But did you not represent to the complainant that all joint owners would execute the sale deed? Is that not an inducement?

My Lord, the complainant has not produced any evidence that the respondent represented that the daughter would execute the sale deed. The agreement itself does not bear the daughter's signature. The complainant knew that the daughter was abroad. He cannot claim that he was induced by a false representation. The fact that the daughter was abroad was within the complainant's knowledge. There was no inducement.

You received Rs. 3.55 crores. That is a substantial amount. Yet you sold the property to a third party. How is this not cheating?

My Lord, the respondent did not receive the entire consideration. Only Rs. 3.55 crores was paid out of Rs. 4.30 crores. The complainant was not ready to pay the balance. The respondent had the right to sell the property to a third party if the complainant was not ready to complete the transaction. The dispute is about whether the complainant was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. This is a civil dispute, not a criminal offence.

The High Court had earlier dismissed your quashing petition, noting your criminal antecedents. Why should that not be considered?

My Lord, the quashing petition was dismissed on the ground that there was a prima facie case, not on the basis of antecedents. The allegations in the FIR, even if taken at face value, disclosed a prima facie case. That does not mean the respondent is guilty. Anticipatory bail is a different remedy. The High Court correctly considered that the dispute is civil in nature and granted bail. The dismissal of the quashing petition does not bar the grant of anticipatory bail.

You were not readily available during investigation, and coercive steps were required. Does this not indicate that you were evading arrest?

My Lord, the respondent was not evading arrest. She was cooperating with the investigation. The coercive steps were taken because the respondent was not present at her residence. She was residing elsewhere due to family circumstances. Once she came to know of the proceedings, she promptly filed for anticipatory bail and participated in the investigation. There is no evidence of evasion.

For RespondentCriminal Premium

High Court Correctly Exercised Discretion to Grant Anticipatory Bail — (2026) INSC 548

The dispute is primarily civil in nature, arising out of a failed property transaction. Only part of the consideration was paid, and the agreement was not registered.

Saurabh Agrawal v. State of Uttar Pradesh — (2026) INSC 548

Core Argument

The dispute is primarily civil in nature, arising out of a failed property transaction. Only part of the consideration was paid, and the agreement was not registered. The High Court correctly exercised its discretion to grant anticipatory bail. The petitioner has not demonstrated any misuse of bail warranting cancellation.

This framework covers the complete step-by-step argument structure, opening submissions, key precedents to cite, how to distinguish adverse cases, and the exact prayer to draft. Subscribe to access the full courtroom argument framework with precedent mapping...

Premium Argument FrameworkSubscribers Only

Subscribe to unlock the full argument structure — precedent mapping, bench questions, opposition rebuttals, and court-ready prayer clauses.

Already subscribed? Sign in

Argument SimulatorPaid Plans Only

BENCH QUESTION

What distinguishes this case from earlier precedents on the same point?

OPPOSITION COUNTER

The ratio in this case was expressly limited to its facts by the bench itself...

Unlock the Argument Simulator

4 probable bench questions with suggested answers.
4 opposition counters with rebuttal strategies.

Available on Monthly, Annual, 2-Year & 3-Year plans.

Subscribe to Unlock →

Simulated Content — Not Legal Advice: This courtroom argument and all associated bench questions, judicial responses, and simulator outputs are entirely simulated and hypothetical, created for educational and professional training purposes only. They do not represent actual court proceedings, real judicial opinions, or the positions of any judge or party. Do not cite or use this content in any court, tribunal, or legal proceeding without independent verification and adaptation by a qualified advocate. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in