The grant of anticipatory bail in economic offences requires a balanced consideration of the gravity of the allegations, the accused's criminal antecedents, and the conduct of the parties. Discretion exercised by ignoring these material factors in favor of peripheral civil considerations is legally unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This Appeal arises out of the impugned order dated 06.10.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench¹[For short, ‘High Court’] in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS No. 812 of 2025, by which anticipatory bail has been granted to Respondent No. 2 – Monika Dwivedi in connection with FIR No. 0002 of 2025 dated 03.01.2025 registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Aggrieved by the grant of such protection, the complainant-Saurabh Agrawal has approached this Court seeking its cancellation.

3. The FIR dated 03.01.2025 came to be lodged by the complainant alleging a large-scale financial fraud in relation to a residential property bearing C-24, E-Park, Mahanagar Extension, Lucknow, which was represented to be jointly owned by Respondent No. 2, her son Abhishek Dwivedi, and her daughter Abhilasha Dwivedi.

4. According to the complainant, acting on such representation, he entered into an agreement to sell dated 08.01.2024, which was notarized, fixing the total sale consideration at Rs. 4,30,00,000/-. A sum of Rs. 3,55,00,000/- was paid in instalments through various modes, as acknowledged in the agreement. It was further represented that the sale deed would be executed upon the return of Respondent No.2’s daughter from abroad, and documents including air travel details were furnished in that regard.

5. It is alleged that despite receipt of substantial consideration, Respondent No. 2 and her son proceeded to execute a sale deed dated 24.06.2024 in favour of a third party, namely Pankaj Mohan Mishra, thereby transferring the entire property. The complainant asserts that the daughter, in fact, had no ownership interest in the property, rendering the earlier representation false. Upon demanding either execution of the sale deed or refund of the amount paid, the complainant was allegedly threatened.

6. Initially, FIR No. 0333 of 2024 dated 17.12.2024 was registered at Police Station Aliganj, District Lucknow North. The same was thereafter transferred and re-registered as FIR No. 0002 of 2025 dated 03.01.2025 at Police Station Mahanagar, District Lucknow North.

7. Respondent No. 2 and her son challenged the FIR by filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1688 of 2025 before the High Court. By order dated 05.03.2025, the High Court referred the parties to mediation, which, however, did not succeed. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed on 08.05.2025, while noting, inter alia, the criminal antecedents of the accused persons and the existence of a prima facie case of financial fraud.

8. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 moved an application for anticipatory bail before the Court of Sessions, Lucknow being Bail Application (U/S 482 B.N.S.S.) No. 3593 of 2025, which came to be rejected on 18.06.2025, having regard to the seriousness of the allegations and the criminal antecedents.

9. It also appears from the record that in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8342 of 2025 preferred by the complainant seeking fair investigation, the High Court, while disposing of the writ petition, recorded that the accused persons were absconding and that coercive steps were being taken by the investigating agency to secure their presence.

10. Respondent No. 2 thereafter approached the High Court by filing Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS No. 812 of 2025. The complainant opposed the application by filing a counter affidavit, highlighting the alleged fraudulent conduct, the criminal antecedents, and the ongoing investigation.

11. By the impu