HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 7839 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Heard Sri Amit Rana, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Uma Shankar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 137 of 2024 under Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC, Police Station Brahampuri, District Meerut with the prayer that in the event of arrest, the applicant may be released on bail. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested. He further submits that the first informant and co-accused Smt. Rajesh were living together in a live-in relationship and the applicant executed the sale deed in favour of the latter in good faith. It is further submitted that the present prosecution is a counter blast to the complaint case filed by Smt. Rajesh under sections 354-A, 354-B, 354-C, 448, 323, 504, 506 IPC against the first informant. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and submitted that the applicant obtained the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amit Rana Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Manoj Sharma .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) consideration amount from the first informant fraudulently and executed the sale deed in favour of co-accused Smt. Rajesh. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. From perusal of the FIR, applicant is said to have executed the sale deed in favour of co-accused Smt. Rajesh after obtaining the consideration amount from the first informant. It is submitted that first informant and co-accused Smt. Rajesh were living in a live-in relationship and the applicant executed the sale deed in favour of latter in good faith. It is also submitted that the present prosecution has been lodged after a complaint was filed by Smt. Rajesh against the first informant under sections 354-A, 354-B, 354-C, 448, 323, 504, 506 IPC. 7. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, the Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedents of the accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must also evaluate the entire available material against the accused carefully and the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration. 8. In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out. 9. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. 10. In the event of arrest of the applicant Manoj Sharma involved in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, with the following conditions :- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence and that he would appear NABAIL No. 7839 of 2025 2 before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned; (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) The applicant would co-operate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail. (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned. 11. In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. October 8, 2025 Madhurima NABAIL No. 7839 of 2025 3 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad