Mr. Agrawal, the High Court noted that the daughter of the accused was abroad at the time of execution of the agreement. Does that not cast doubt on whether all joint owners were actually party to the agreement?

My Lord, the presence or absence of the daughter abroad is a matter of evidence. The allegation is that the complainant was induced by a representation that all joint owners would execute the sale deed. Whether that representation was false is a question of fact for trial. The fact that the daughter was abroad does not, by itself, negate the allegation of fraudulent inducement. The accused could have still represented that she would return and execute the deed. The High Court erred by treating this as a ground to grant anticipatory bail.

The agreement was not registered. Does that not indicate that it was not a legally enforceable contract, thereby diluting the criminality?

My Lord, the allegation is not merely of breach of contract, but of fraudulent inducement and criminal conspiracy. The accused represented that they owned the property and would execute the sale deed. Acting on that representation, the complainant paid Rs. 3.55 crores. Thereafter, the accused sold the property to a third party. The nature of the agreement — whether registered or not — does not neutralize the criminality of this conduct. The High Court's reasoning is misplaced.

The High Court noted that the complainant sought refund in the FIR. Does this not indicate that the dispute is civil in nature?

My Lord, the existence of a civil remedy does not preclude criminal proceedings where the ingredients of a criminal offence are prima facie made out. The complainant is entitled to seek both criminal prosecution and civil recovery. The mere fact that he seeks refund does not convert the fraudulent inducement into a civil dispute. The core allegation is cheating and criminal breach of trust, which are criminal offences. This Court has consistently held that civil remedies and criminal proceedings can coexist.

The High Court earlier dismissed the quashing petition filed by the accused, noting criminal antecedents. Yet the same High Court granted anticipatory bail. How do you explain this contradiction?

My Lord, that is precisely the petitioner's grievance. The High Court, while dismissing the quashing petition on 8 May 2025, recorded the existence of multiple criminal antecedents of a similar nature against the accused persons. The Sessions Court also noted these antecedents while rejecting anticipatory bail on 18 June 2025. However, when the same accused approached the High Court again for anticipatory bail, the High Court completely ignored these antecedents. The impugned order is silent on this crucial factor. This omission alone renders the order unsustainable. The High Court cannot, on one hand, note the antecedents to dismiss a quashing petition and, on the other hand, ignore them to grant anticipatory bail.

For PetitionerCriminal Premium

High Court Ignored Criminal Antecedents and Material Factors — (2026) INSC 548

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to an accused with criminal antecedents in a Rs.

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

Core Argument

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to an accused with criminal antecedents in a Rs. 4.30 crore property fraud case, overlooking material factors such as the substantial amount involved, the deliberate alienation of property to a third party after receiving consideration, and the accused's conduct of evading investigation. The impugned order is unsustainable.

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